State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-14-12

[gritguy]

Cell pings again (sorry).
Some say he turned the cell off and back on the next am.
Probably did, but there is no proof.
As we learned in Brad Cooper, pings are only recorded and stored when calls are placed or received.
(don't confuse real time ping tracking in missing person cases)

That's an important clarification b/c I've been understanding it to be the case he had turned it off.

If correct that takes my intentionally defeated location systems down to 3! If the prosecution and defense both leave it alone then it must be as you say above.

 

[Madeleine74]

Actually, a cell phone's location is tracked whenever the cell is *on,* not just when making calls. This depends on the cell phone being used and its capabilities. I don't recall what was possible in 2006. If not possible by pinging, then by triangulation.

Therefore, people who are determined not to be tracked must not only turn their cell phones off, but with new phones today they also need to remove the battery as well.

So GritGuy, I think system #4 is still valid for inclusion.

 

[Just the Fax]

Albert...good questions, wish I had the energy right now to give you answers.
(info overload today)
I remember your posts were insightful on the technical evidence in the Cooper trial.

 

[gritguy]

Actually, cell phone pings are tracked whenever the cell is *on,* not just when making calls. This depends on the cell phone being used and its capabilities. I don't recall what was possible in 2006.

Therefore people who are determined not to be tracked must not only turn their cell phones off, but they also need to remove the battery as well.

So GritGuy, I think system #4 is still valid for inclusion.

It was my belief, but not knowledge, that it would ping if it switched towers as one travelled for example. Anyway, the attorneys will make hay in either direction if there is something to it pro or con.

 

[Just the Fax]

Actually, cell phone pings are tracked whenever the cell is *on,* not just when making calls. This depends on the cell phone being used and its capabilities. I don't recall what was possible in 2006.

Therefore people who are determined not to be tracked must not only turn their cell phones off, but they also need to remove the battery as well.

So GritGuy, I think system #4 is still valid for inclusion.

Yes, using GPS or real time in a special situation...not after the fact.
There are a gazzillion pings to towers every second, they are not recorded for later retrieval unless they ping for a call.

 

[ohiogirl]

There's no proof a pullover was ever IN his luggage.

JMO

I thought there was video showing him wearing it?

 

[JudysSisterMaureen]

Hey it's "You can call me Al" Sternberg! I met him once, but it was many years ago. I know his wife, who is a court reporter but is in private practice.

<Disclosure> I have never discussed this case with her other than asking before trial #1 "will Al be testifying in this one?" answer: "yes at some point." She and I discuss food, recipes, some TV shows, our pets. We may have plotted to stalk Colin Firth when he was filming in downtown Raleigh, but I'm admitting to nuttin'!</Disclosure>

Tori's one in a million. One of my best friends. And Al is salt of the earth, straight up kind of guy. Love them both to bits. I wish they were on my sister's case! And ... I'm the one who generally chimes in with "Om nom nom nom" or, yummyyummyschlurp!

 

[BritsKate]

I'm not saying there isn't evidence, but I do wonder what's up when reading the paper at midnight or parking his car before checking in is considered suspicious. Everything about Jason seems to be filtered through the guilty screen, so everything he does is presented as sinister. Jason has some serious problems because of his adultery, the long loud arguments he and his wife had in public and so on, but I suppose I'd like to see a little more separation between what actually implies guilt and taking everything he did and interpretting it as guilt. We've heard from the psychologist that Michelle was verbally abused, yet the fact that Jason and Michelle had long, loud arguments is not viewed as perhaps two people participating in verbal abuse ... instead, we interpret it as Michelle was in an abusive relationship.

I'm willing to give the professional the benefit of the doubt. I am admittedly biased because I was in a decade long abusive marriage - primarily emotional. Arguing and abuse just are not the same. In the heat of anger and frustration many people hurl abuses but are later able to express themselves in a healthy non-abusive manner. Abusers are incapable of this. While verbal abuse can be exhibited by yelling and screaming it is most often in conjunction with many other behaviors.

It is a misconception that those experiencing abuse never fight back or argue. Arguing is quite common in the tension building phase of the abusive cycle. Some victims also 'fight back' (defend themselves) early into the relationship and realize the abuse only escalates while others wake up one day to the sudden acknowledgment that they cannot bear another moment of being a doormat.

My marriage ended with me (stupidly) screaming at my now ex-husband to just kill me already because I'd been threatened with it for just so long. I was furious at the way he'd treated me and angry with myself for staying. I am quite certain to my neighbors I appeared the aggressor however they were not there for the years of digs, jabs, insults, threats, intimidation, blackmail, complaints, rages, criticisms, stalking, accusations and crazy making.

It is quite common for an abuser to provoke a victim and then accuse them of being unstable, mentally ill, the aggressor. (Not saying this is the case here but it is a part of the manipulative profile of an abusive personality.)

In my experience abuse and arguing did most definitely co-exist. FWIW and MOO
http://www.thereislifeafterabuse.com/Page.html

 

[Boodles]

Nope, she never asked.

I am not sure if she forgot or if it was:

"Never ask a question, you don't know the answer to "

Maybe if Jason had a answer, she didn't want the Jury to hear it, so she kind of just left it out there, that it was missing....

JMO

Which just reinforces the point of how unfortunate is that LE and the prosecution team could not ask this question of the defendant during the past 5+ years because he wouldn't speak, not even with his attorney present. If there was anything that could have eliminated him as a suspect, his cooperation could have led to that conclusion.

But I guess if you're guilty, you're better off keeping them all guessing and in the dark, and costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands (if not more) of dollars in investigation and administrative expenses to prosecute your sorry self.

This guy has zero value, make that negative value, to society. There are no words to adequately describe his evilness.

 

[fran]

NICE! the car seat is in the back of the SUV. He was still on the prowl for girlfriends!
My kids are grown. I recently read that men with small children that cheat
often remove the child's car seat from their vehicle in order to hide the child and his marital status from the lover. It probably is no big deal but I don't like the way that car seat is "tossed" in the back of his SUV.
Maybe he had to drive business associates around. I guess I'm just picky
but once a child's car seat is safely secured in a vehicle why toss it back and forth? It rubs me the wrong way when a man does that. Maybe that was the first time but I have had friends whose hubby's cheated and they made it a point to only have the seat in the car if the child was... they had something to hide.~IMO that's a red flag that he was a cheater.
I wonder if he was meticulous about cleaning his car and keeping CY's toys
etc OUT of his "ride".:waitasec:
A faithful loving husband that acts like an adult probably has no issues riding around with a car seat in full view...

moo

Hi gngr~snap

Although there are many issues that have been raised in trial that I personally agree point towards JY's guilt, some are a non-issue to me. Regarding the car seat in the back of the SUV. We need to keep in mind, he brought his family back to NC with him, after he was advised about MY. So the child seat was most likely removed to allow for additional seating of those that accompanied him back home in his vehicle.

Just my thoughts,

fran

 

[gritguy]

I thought there was video showing him wearing it?

if you go to this link and on the picture selector below the pic click the left one so you see pic 60 there it is.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/image_gallery/9726666/

 

[ohiogirl]

Otto: We've heard from the psychologist that Michelle was verbally abused, yet the fact that Jason and Michelle had long, loud arguments is not viewed as perhaps two people participating in verbal abuse ... instead, we interpret it as Michelle was in an abusive relationship.

I guess because there are those of us who believe she was a vicitim of the ultimate form of domestic abuse. If you don't, you don't.

 

[Just the Fax]

Of course I sent this enhanced pic to Spivey and asked that they please adjust the contrast and sharpness of their photo.....doing so allows the 'blob' in his hand to suddenly look like a leather glove. No, not a perfect image because of the poor resolution, but obviously the thumb finger of a glove.

Mr Young, what happened to your dark pullover and gloves you were seen with at midnight before your wife was murdered?

 

[oakayfine]

This is probably Off Topic but I am just curious about how many think that the Jury will lean one way or another in the aftermath of both the BC Trial AND the Casey Anthony Trial.

Both trials had different outcomes for different reasons but both trials had Public outrage over the results.

 

[fifteen89]

Is there anything about Jason's character, words and actions that do not indicate he's a murderer? Everything from when he reads the paper to what he says on the phone, where he parks his car, what he has in his suitcase, what he uses to prop a door, Elmer's prints are on a pipe, a rock on the sidewalk ... all spells murder?

You forgot cutting off his long hair and not sitting up straight.
(just kidding......my bad)

 

[frankdrack]

Yes, using GPS or real time in a special situation...not after the fact.
There are a gazzillion pings to towers every second, they are not recorded for later retrieval unless they ping for a call.

Hope that you are well,

I think that you are confused on this issue.

"The NYPD traced Littlejohn to that lonely corner of East New York, off the Belt Parkway, by tracing the invisible "pings" that his T-Mobile cell phone sent to the antenna-studded tower, sources said.

The big, blue tower apparently took notice that Littlejohn's cell phone was nearby, even though he wasn't making a call - and it stored that information, which was later retrieved from T-Mobile by cops

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2006-03-15/news/18327009_1_cell-phone-antenna-traced[/COLOR]

There are many, many other cases that stored pings have been used.

 

[gritguy]

This is probably Off Topic but I am just curious about how many think that the Jury will lean one way or another in the aftermath of both the BC Trial AND the Casey Anthony Trial.

Both trials had different outcomes for different reasons but both trials had Public outrage over the results.

IMO, I don't think it will affect the jury. They are spending a long time in that courtroom listening to evidence and in the absence of anything to point to the contrary I'd think they will do their duty the best they can, other cases aside.

I think that was done in the first trial, and in the cases you cite, whether one disagrees with the verdicts or not.

The BC case of course was not in the same league as the Anthony case on the publicity scale, but even so while there were many who disagreed with the BC verdict there were many who didn't who had less reason to be vocal.

I just wouldn't think those two cases would sway the jury in this trial.

Of course I could be totally wrong.

 

[Just the Fax]

This is probably Off Topic but I am just curious about how many think that the Jury will lean one way or another in the aftermath of both the BC Trial AND the Casey Anthony Trial.

Both trials had different outcomes for different reasons but both trials had Public outrage over the results.

Public outrage over CA , of course.

Brad Cooper?
Guilty as charged (IMO, of course)

Yes, the Cooper trial impacted the first Young trail greatly...mainly it was rushed...the whole Wake County Court system was exhausted after Cooper (or should I say Kurtz)

 

[fifteen89]

I'm not saying there isn't evidence, but I do wonder what's up when reading the paper at midnight or parking his car before checking in is considered suspicious. Everything about Jason seems to be filtered through the guilty screen, so everything he does is presented as sinister. Jason has some serious problems because of his adultery, the long loud arguments he and his wife had in public and so on, but I suppose I'd like to see a little more separation between what actually implies guilt and taking everything he did and interpretting it as guilt. We've heard from the psychologist that Michelle was verbally abused, yet the fact that Jason and Michelle had long, loud arguments is not viewed as perhaps two people participating in verbal abuse ... instead, we interpret it as Michelle was in an abusive relationship.

^bbm^
Maybe it's more consistent with guilt than consistent with innocent/not guilty, as opposed to 'actually implies guilt'. jmt

 

[Bottle Cap]

Right here. He parked his car and checked in. His hotel room was on the opposite side of where he parked ... he must be guilty, right?

I firmly believe that nobody does anything for just no reason at all. Benign or malign, people generally have some reason for the things they do. Otherwise we'd all just be ragdolls, flopping around out there willy nilly. People do illogical things all the time, and generally will have some justification for it, rational or not. Whether that illogical action is sinister is entirely detmined by the context in which it was made.

Context must be acknowledged. If we had a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that JY beat his wife to death, then yer darn tootin' him parking his car in an illogical place would factor into his actions prior to the crime. Virtually every move he made in the hours leading up to the crime would be made within the context of the crime he was about to commit.

And there's every chance he did this.

Ergo, there's every chance that his every move was relevant. Including where he parked his car, where he chose to eat, what he chose to wear.