Jason Young to get new trial

[sunshine05]

JY was not informed of ANYTHING by LE because he NEVER, EVER spoke to them!!!

How many spouses would NOT initially talk to LE????? To at LEAST find out first hand what had happened. Explain it all you will.......defend it all you will.....excuse it all you will.....but the fact remains, he NEVER ONCE asked LE about his wife and what had happened. Rely on info from others??? I say BS!!!!

I'm not sure why you're so worked up about him not talking to LE. His attorney informed him not to. What's the problem? She's dead. What's the urgency about finding out how she died - whether shot, stabbed, etc.? It's horrible regardless. I think most people would be in complete shock and the details - just not important at the time that you are trying to process such a horrible tragic loss.

 

[sunshine05]

Just yesterday it was pointed out (by you) that we should not be discussing other cases, like the BC case, in the JY threads....

And yet here we are...

It was used merely as an example of why one should never talk to police. It illustrated it perfectly - if you do talk to police this is what can happen if they are dishonest.

 

[otto]

BBM

Exactly! So what is the big deal about them investigating him? Do you think every man that has been accused of murdering his wife and convicted and is in jail is innocent? Is MP? Was SP? How about Jeffrey Mcdonald? Raven? Obvisously you think BC is. I don't know, didn't follow that one.

Laci Peterson's murder was full of CE. They had a body but no COD and no weapon. Scott acted very suspicious after she went missing. He was having an affair. He didn't want a child. I see alot of similarities between LP and MY. In an email between JY and KY he mentions RA and how noone even remembers him. Hmmm.....he did. And he also stated how he hoped there would be no arrest. No shouldn't that have been stated: I'm innocent and I hope I am never arrested but I hope they do eventually find the killer of my wife and baby boy.


My point is that unless you have DE such as a confession or videotape, most cases are full of CE.

I think everyone that finds it interesting to read about murders knows that when a woman is murdered, the spouse/boyfriend must be eliminated early in the investigation. I doubt that people that avoid information about murders expect that the spouse/boyfriend will be carefully investigated. Even in the Laci Peterson case, her family did not suspect the husband until his girlfriend came forward.

 

[tarheellvr]

"Where is the shirt? Where are the shoes" and "He didn't testify."

Yes indeed...where ARE the shirt and shoes???? somewhere in a trash bag in a landfill somewhere or down a mountain somewhere......

 

[Landonsmom02]

No, I don't believe that everyone accused of murdering their spouse is innocent. I'm not going to comment on the many cases you've mentioned in this thread. 1. Let's stick to the Young case.

Yes, it is absolutely necessary to investigate the spouse. No one is arguing that. Yes, CE is common to convict a person and I have no problem with that whatsoever. What I do have a problem with is the shaky, unverified CE strung together in this case. We should be able to evaluate each piece of CE and determine it's credibility and it should stand up to scrutiny; otherwise it should be discarded. We are talking about people's lives. We must be certain that we're getting it right.

Again, I will use this example -- Gracie's gas station at 5:30AM --2. Show me a surveillance image and/or a receipt with JY's credit card that proves he was there at that time and I will consider it a valid and important piece of CE used to infer his guilt. As it stands, what the State presented is completely unverified and therefore must be discarded (to me as a juror) The State must prove their case and the bar is high. I won't allow them to get away with a brain damaged woman with memory problems to convince me that JY was there. She didn't even know what he looked like.

Example 2: Cameras at the Hampton Inn - 3.Show me an image of JY on the camera and a second later it goes dark --- camera is unplugged or show me an image of him entering the building at 6:30AM wearing different clothing and I will accept that CE to infer guilt. State: Don't show me that someone else's fingerprints are on the camera and ask me to disregard that evidence. No argument would be occurring if it's verified CE.

BBM

1. Thanks, so let's leave the BC comments and how his trial went to the BC forum.

2.Now wouldn't that be direct evidence and not CE? Thanks

3. No don't ya think the whole point of him unplugging the camera and pushing it up is the AVOID being seen. Pretty stupid of him to walk in front of a camera and then a second later it goes black. Jason calculated this attack and he did use some common sense when he planned this murder.

Thanks, have a great Friday!

 

[tarheellvr]

I'm not sure why you're so worked up about him not talking to LE. His attorney informed him not to. What's the problem? She's dead. What's the urgency about finding out how she died - whether shot, stabbed, etc.? It's horrible regardless. I think most people would be in complete shock and the details - just not important at the time that you are trying to process such a horrible tragic loss.

He DID NOT have an an attorney in the beginning......What's the problem??????

If I was informed my spouse was dead in our home, I would desperately want to know what happend.....and I think MOST of the population would too.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Yes indeed...where ARE the shirt and shoes???? somewhere in a trash bag in a landfill somewhere or down a mountain somewhere......

Yes he didn't testify in the first trial......but by the second trial JY had time to perfect his "act/testimony" because he had all the info from the first trial. So sly, so confident was JY .....he even tried to cry while presenting his testimony. But the funny thing was, while he continually wiped his eyes, nobody saw a tear! And in the end.......his "act" was flawed as he was found guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn son!

He did testify in the first trial but that was after the state rested and he had heard their case. The jury saw the taped testimony in the second trial since he chose not to re-testify.

 

[sunshine05]

BBM

1. Thanks, so let's leave the BC comments and how his trial went to the BC forum.

2.Now wouldn't that be direct evidence and not CE? Thanks

3. No don't ya think the whole point of him unplugging the camera and pushing it up is the AVOID being seen. Pretty stupid of him to walk in front of a camera and then a second later it goes black. Jason calculated this attack and he did use some common sense when he planned this murder.

Thanks, have a great Friday!

2. No, that would be CE because it still doesn't prove that he murdered her; it only proves that he was out when he shouldn't have been. Direct evidence would be video recording of the actual murder. Direct evidence is pretty rare in a murder case.

3. The cameras cycled every 14 seconds so it would be impossible to know at which precise time any particular camera is capturing a shot of that location. He would have had no way of knowing whether or not he would be captured approaching the camera.

 

[Nymeria]

2. Show me a surveillance image and/or a receipt with JY's credit card that proves he was there at that time and I will consider it a valid and important piece of CE used to infer his guilt.

BBM
2.Now wouldn't that be direct evidence and not CE? Thanks

2. No, that would be CE because it still doesn't prove that he murdered her; it only proves that he was out when he shouldn't have been. Direct evidence would be video recording of the actual murder. Direct evidence is pretty rare in a murder case.

But it would be DIRECT EVIDENCE that he was at the gas station.

 

[JusticeFever]

sunshine....why do you keep bring up Brad Cooper???? this forum is about JY......

The cases share some comparisons, they happened in the same area, and they are both getting new trials.I am sure there has only been a mention of Cooper a few times in this forum by anyone, myself included.

 

[sunshine05]

But it would be DIRECT EVIDENCE that he was at the gas station.

Correct and therefore it would count as CE to infer guilt of murder. That is how CE works. It must be fact based.


circumstantial evidence
noun
proof of facts offered as evidence from which other facts are to be inferred (contrasted with direct evidence ).


The CE in this case is not factual as it is unverified in many instances.

 

[Tia]

I'm not sure why you're so worked up about him not talking to LE. His attorney informed him not to. What's the problem? She's dead. What's the urgency about finding out how she died - whether shot, stabbed, etc.? It's horrible regardless. I think most people would be in complete shock and the details - just not important at the time that you are trying to process such a horrible tragic loss.

The most natural response would be "what happened??!??!"
He didn't ask because he knew, IMO.

 

[sunshine05]

The most natural response would be "what happened??!??!"
He didn't ask because he knew, IMO.

What happened is that she was murdered. He knows that much as he is under suspicion. Who cares what the mode is at that point in time? I certainly would feel comfortable waiting until I arrived in town to find out from family.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Where has anyone said they think anyone accused of murdering their wife has been railroaded? I think it has been explained multiple times that some want or need more evidence linking them to the crime. Can you please stop with the personal attacks?

Ummm....it has been mentioned multiple times in this thread. LEO had tunnel vision and railroaded JY.

 

[sunshine05]

Yes indeed...where ARE the shirt and shoes???? somewhere in a trash bag in a landfill somewhere or down a mountain somewhere......

Right. No one knows. What we do know is that LE left all kinds of things in the Explorer when they seized it so it is impossible to know if the items deemed "missing" were actually missing.

JY gets his Explorer back, cleans it out, does who knows what with the dirty laundry. He's expected to turn it over when it's requested 26 months later? That's unreasonable.

 

[JusticeFever]

Ummm....it has been mentioned multiple times in this thread. LEO had tunnel vision and railroaded JY.

I have seen the term rush to judgment applied, maybe that is what you mean!

 

[JusticeFever]

We don't know what was discussed during the phone call when Jason was returning to Raleigh. It is impossible to factually state that no one of Jason's family knew what Meredith knew about the crime scene. Obviously police could not provide any additional information because they did not yet know the cause of death. We don't know what Jason did to follow up on the investigation.

What should Jason have done that he didn't do? What do family's normally do when they are informed over the phone that a loved one has been murdered? I'm sure they asked what happened, and I'm sure that police state that they won't know more until the medical examiner has completed an autopsy. Then what ??? Is the family supposed to answer questions over the phone about what they were doing at the time of the murder? Is that how investigations are initiated in Raleigh? How do other victims of crime feel about this practice?

You are right, plus I think this is the case the family hired their own PI and were actively seeking answers on Jason's behalf. And, I know this is the case that someone found a tooth after LE"s investigation had been completed. So, to say Jason never asked questions or was not involved in the investigation to find out what happened to Michelle is incorrect.

 

[Madeleine74]

Evidence is based on facts, be they circumstantial or direct, verified or not.* Jurors (and only jurors) get to decide which evidence is relevant, believable, and what weight to assign it, if any. Testimony in a trial is considered evidence that the jurors can weigh (or not) as they see fit, and based on the instructions they are given.

*JY claimed lots of things in his testimony in trial #1. Lots of things unverified and based only on his saying them for the first time in court.

 

[Madeleine74]

Right. No one knows. What we do know is that LE left all kinds of things in the Explorer when they seized it so it is impossible to know if the items deemed "missing" were actually missing.

JY gets his Explorer back, cleans it out, does who knows what with the dirty laundry. He's expected to turn it over when it's requested 26 months later? That's unreasonable.

Specifically what "things" were left in JY's Ford Explorer? Does that mean these things were not taken out at CCBI when they processed the vehicle after getting their search warrant signed, and then put these various items back in the Explorer if it was determined they were not needed for investigation? And is there testimony that these things were never looked at, never removed from the Explorer at any point by LE in the secure CCBI processing area? What is the problem with this?

 

[JusticeFever]

Direct, circumstantial or slam dunk evidence would have been:
Being caught on camera at the gas station
Being pulled over on the interstate and getting ticketed
Having the night clerk knock or open your door after seeing it ajar and finding it empty
Having a call come to your room and not being there to answer it
Being found with blood, the murder weapon , and signs of being in a struggle

2nd best signs of involvement would have been:
CY being afraid of you
Not attending the funeral
Not returning to Raleigh that night
Not bringing the SUV back
Fleeing while out on bail

Not one of those things above happened, not one.