That is blatantly false. MF testified in court that she saw dried blood on CY's toes. This is part of the record and "that bell can not be unrung".
Were there any adult footprints identified in the bathroom? I don't think so. It was covered with her tiny footprints and swipes on the back of the bathroom door.
She stated it was in the nail beds and that does nothing to change the fact that someone cleaned her, removed the blood from her. (no one else saw blood in the nail beds, including family members who saw her that night).
Thanks for the photographs.
A few observations:
1. I don't think anyone can say what is a "natural step" of a 2 year old. There are all kinds of possibilities as to how those particular footprints ended up the way that they did.
2. I don't see any evidence of lack of footprints between the bedroom and the bathroom. In fact, it is pretty clear from the one photograph that there are footprints that are going from the carpet into the bathroom (as you mentioned). You cannot make a conclusive statement that there were no footprints between the bedroom and the bathroom unless there is a photo of the carpet between the bedroom and the bathroom.
3. One thing that strikes me as odd is that there are footprints behind the door, or under the door.
4. It seems pretty clear to me that there are bloody footprints on the stepstool. What does that stepstool go to? Could CY have gotten up on the stepstool then wiped her feet with water from wherever that leads?
She stated it was in the nail beds and that does nothing to change the fact that someone cleaned her, removed the blood from her. (no one else saw blood in the nail beds, including family members who saw her that night).
The photo of the bedroom floor --- the body would have been to the left of the bed and there is no purple trail of small prints leading out of the room.
"There are all kinds of possibilities as to how those particular footprints ended up the way that they did."
Staging is the one that makes the most sense. The prints do not indicate walking around but tapping and just one foot over and over in the same area and in some cases just the toes. I can't imagine where her right foot would be as this is taking place as there is no corresponding right print there.
The step stool is below the sink. There is NO evidence that she cleaned her own feet - no bloody towels, no bloody hand prints on the sink or on the faucet, no blood at all on the surface of the sink. If she was standing on the stool, she did so w/o touching anything which is odd for a 2 year old.
Yes, you are correct that the door had to be closed when some of these prints were made.
It negates the statement that there was no blood on CY and it is NOT A FACT that anyone cleaned her, that is an OPINION, and one that is not supported by the evidence.
I'm beginning to wonder if you watched either trial. At both, it was the prosecution theory that CY was cleaned. Not an opinion, a theory.
They said Jason Young was a feckless, cold-hearted, philandering husband who killed his wife after a harried, post-midnight, 170-mile drive from a business trip in southern Virginia to Wake County. They argued that he cleaned himself up, cleaned up his daughter, drugged her and then headed back again to the foothills of Virginia to continue with business calls.
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07...or-jason-young-file-appeal.html#storylink=cpy
A theory is an opinion.
And the prosecution's theory is hardly fact. To the contrary, they need to prove their theory. The U.S. Justice System is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and the claims of the prosecution are worth precisely nothing. The only thing that is of value is what they can prove via evidence.
Just to repeat:
THE THEORY THAT CY WAS CLEANED PRIOR TO BEING FOUND BY MF IS NOT A FACT, IT IS AN OPINION. It doesn't matter if the theory came from the police, the prosecution, or the defense.
Gosh, I wonder if the prosecution and the jury were aware it was just an opinion not supported by evidence as you claim. After all, they sentenced a man to life and prison for it.
The report stated jury forewoman Tracey Raksnis said there were two main pieces of evidence that helped them reach a guilty verdict.
Those key points of evidence were, she said, that the clothes and shoes that Jason Young had been wearing the night of murder were never found, and Cassidy Young's feet and pajamas had been cleaned after she left bloody footprints around the house.
"She was cleaned up. I don't see anybody else [but Jason Young] doing that. If this was just a robbery, I don't think you pay that kind of attention," Raksnis said in the WRAL report.
http://www.lsureveille.com/article_86e46e89-7857-5b53-88a2-15504774eb8d.html?mode=jqm
Thats an awful lot of blood on the bathroom floor.... Im sorry, but theres no way that child stepped in blood walked on carpet & left that much blood on the bathroom floor.... Nope!! Sorry didnt happen that way..... If she did there should have been dark prints on carpet & light or very little blood on the tile...
Show me photos of the hallway carpet between the bedroom and the bathroom that have no blood on them, and I might tend to believe you.
Thats an awful lot of blood on the bathroom floor.... Im sorry, but theres no way that child stepped in blood walked on carpet & left that much blood on the bathroom floor.... Nope!! Sorry didnt happen that way..... If she did there should have been dark prints on carpet & light or very little blood on the tile...
I remember reading where a poster said on here during the trial that the reason blood was on the wall or the door was because CY laid in the floor and put her feet on the wall.... Now how did that happen and no blood on the back of her shirt???
Didnt someone on here the other night say there were a few light prints of blood on the carpet???
We would need to see a trail of CY walking from the body to the bathroom, not some random smudges unless she was doing large jumps to get herself there. Since the prints on the tiles are so dark and well defined, there would need to also be dark, defined prints on the carpet (unless she was carried or unless she can fly). It also appears that her feet were dipped multiple times as there is not a pattern of fainter prints as the blood is wearing off which is what I would expect to see with natural steps with a substance on ones feet. The steps are not natural.
Besides IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE WHY ANYONE WOULD CARRY CY FROM THE BEDROOM TO THE BATHROOM JUST TO MAKE FOOTPRINTS IN THE BATHROOM. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Please someone explain a rational reason why someone, anyone would do this? I cannot fathom it.
The photo on the prints has been enhanced using photoshop. This is evidence when the photo is opened and the levels are checked. A print on a tile floor is different from a print on a carpet. The carpet absorbs the blood, the tile floor is porous, but for the most part, the print will sit on top of the tile.
The steps suggest that a child was moving around in the bathroom ... perhaps getting the bench and moving it to the spot where it is found in front of the sink. That would account for the overlapping prints near the bench - which also has bloody prints.
