Jason Young to get new trial

[Nymeria]

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.

I know what CE is.
My point was video would be DE of him being AT the gas station.
(If you re-read my post you will get what I was saying).

 

[Tia]

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.

If we are to believe the Youngs, Jason knew NOTHING when he arrived, when he was told he fell "plumb to his knees" but never asked "how" or "what happened"?

If he didn't already know, he would have asked those things.

IMO

 

[Nymeria]

Has this case always been this way?
I just noticed that in a a little over a month there are 13 pages of posts, and there is not even a date set yet for a retrial!
I find it even odder that about 80 percent of it is like 4 people who think JY is NG (not that the 4 or so are odd, just that they seem so invested).

 

[sunshine05]

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.

That's not true, Mad. The jurors are always instructed to weigh CE as strongly as direct evidence but CE must be fact based and there is no wiggle room of interpretation about what is a fact in said evidence. If you can't prove that JY was at the King station, it does not count as CE that can be used to infer guilt of murder.

Yes, JY gave his version of what happened but the difference is - he is not required to prove his innocence. The State bears the burden of proof. That's how it's supposed to work.

 

[JusticeFever]

There are 49 pages of posts, not 13, Nymeria.

 

[sunshine05]

I know what CE is.
My point was video would be DE of him being AT the gas station.
(If you re-read my post you will get what I was saying).

That's why I said "correct"

 

[Landonsmom02]

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.

You mean Mr. Godwin? He is so laughable. If his "evidence" was so great why was he never called as a witness at trial? Yeah JY mommy hired him, not JY. He didn't care.........remember "You cam here for THAT?" As of 11-3-06, MY was gone from his life and mind. And his sister found that tooth, since he never once EVER stepped foot back in the house.

 

[sunshine05]

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?

Yes, actually your friend the cook testified that there were items in the vehicle that were not removed and a pair of slip on shoes from the front of the vehicle were shown to him and he verified that they had not been collected.

 

[Landonsmom02]

That's why I said "correct"

No when you first responded to my post you said no it would still be CE?? Which one is it?

 

[Madeleine74]

Was he told it was a murder at the point he "learned" his wife was dead? If the answer is no, then I find that doubly suspicious. Who doesn't ask what happened upon learning a loved one suddenly died?

 

[sunshine05]

You mean Mr. Godwin? He is so laughable. If his "evidence" was so great why was he never called as a witness at trial? Yeah JY mommy hired him, not JY. He didn't care.........remember "You cam here for THAT?" As of 11-3-06, MY was gone from his life and mind. And his sister found that tooth, since he never once EVER stepped foot back in the house.

Attacking the investigator is not adding anything to the discussion. The fact remains that his family hired a PI to assist, to try to determine what happened to MY.

I see nothing odd about him not wanting to return to the home where the brutal murder occurred.

 

[sunshine05]

No when you first responded to my post you said no it would still be CE?? Which one is it?

Both. It's CE for the crime; direct for proof he was at the gas station.

 

[JusticeFever]

Yes, actually your friend the cook testified that there were items in the vehicle that were not removed and a pair of slip on shoes from the front of the vehicle were shown to him and he verified that they had not been collected.

Wait, so they left a pair of shoes in the SUV, never inventoried them or entered them as evidence into the trial?

 

[Madeleine74]

Yes, actually your friend the cook testified that there were items in the vehicle that were not removed and a pair of slip on shoes from the front of the vehicle were shown to him and he verified that they had not been collected.

LOL @ "your friend the cook." Actually my friend is the wife. The "cook" I met the one time and then saw again years later in the courtroom.

His name is Sgt Sternberg.

Does "not collected" mean not looked at? Doesn't "collected" mean taken?

 

[sunshine05]

Was he told it was a murder at the point he "learned" his wife was dead? If the answer is no, then I find that doubly suspicious. Who doesn't ask what happened upon learning a loved one suddenly died?

Ryan told him that police were asking a lot of questions about him. That indicates that foul play was suspected, doesn't it?

 

[Madeleine74]

That wasn't my question.

My question is what did his mamma or Gerald tell him as he arrived at the home and fell plumb to his knees? Did they say she was killed/murdered? Or did they just say she was dead?

 

[sunshine05]

Wait, so they left a pair of shoes in the SUV, never inventoried them or entered them as evidence into the trial?

Correct. Slip-on shoes

 

[JusticeFever]

Attacking the investigator is not adding anything to the discussion. The fact remains that his family hired a PI to assist, to try to determine what happened to MY.

I see nothing odd about him not wanting to return to the home where the brutal murder occurred.

Jason and his family were seeking answers to what happened, so I think this puts it to rest that he never inquired about what happened to his wife or the investigation. Thank you.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Has this case always been this way?
I just noticed that in a a little over a month there are 13 pages of posts, and there is not even a date set yet for a retrial!
I find it even odder that about 80 percent of it is like 4 people who think JY is NG (not that the 4 or so are odd, just that they seem so invested).

Yes before he was arrested, before and during the trials and then poof...nothing after he was found guilty. It looks like the conviction being overturned brought back all the NG. If you notice some posters did post from time to time on MY thread. Mainly around the anniversary of her death, her BD and the anniversary of the conviction.

 

[JusticeFever]

Correct. Slip-on shoes

Did not know that. So, there were item/ items left unaccountable in the SUV. Why did they skip the shoes? Back then, they would not the importance.