State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-21-2012

[Mama-cita]

If he is convicted, not only will she not have to take CY to see him, but, in terms of the legal system it will be as if he died the day before his wife. I learned this during the BC case. Full custody can go to MF and JY will not have parental rights to his daughter.

TY Maddie! Do you happen to know if PY and company have grandparents rights if he's convicted? TIA

 

[otto]

Otto, how do you think the Pros is going to account for the Size 10 shoes?

I haven't seen a podiatrist called this time either.

Is Spivey going to testify Jason had gloves?

Maybe the judge will give an instruction, like last time, that even though the prosecution can't present another defendant, the jury can consider the possibility that there was one.

 

[Wolfpack]

TY Maddie! Do you happen to know if PY and company have grandparents rights if he's convicted? TIA

I know this is not directed at me, but...there's very little support to "grandparents rights" in NC. I do not think they would be awarded in any situation, much less this one. That is likely up to whoever retains custody.

 

[Cammy]

That video (3 minute time) is also where the investigator was confused regarding his testimony. First, he repeated twice that the gas attendant couldn't be sure about something but would not agree that she "didn't remember", but the defense helped him interpret his notes where the investigator then conceded that the gas attendant just didn't remember anything and he had underlined this in his notes several times. That could be an example of facts versus agenda.

I have watched Gracie's testimony from both trials..

She is one of the witnesses that really could have sealed the deal in this case.

"They said they needed me, that my information was important"

 

[Madeleine74]

TY Maddie! Do you happen to know if PY and company have grandparents rights if he's convicted? TIA

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the laws. However, I can't imagine MF denying CY her family on her father's side. I'm sure they would work out visitation.

 

[otto]

No proof you say?

How about Cassidy's DNA on the dropper and no fingerprints on the dropper?

If CY was not given the medicine, how did her DNA get on the end of the dropper?

Who innocently gives a child medicine with a dropper and wears gloves so as not to leave fingerprints?

That doesn't even make sense.

Hell yes, she was given medicine that night. The bottle with the adult Tylenol looked like it had only been used one time. The bottle was just about full.

Come on. Use common sense here.

My common sense is looking for some connection between evidence on the medicine and Jason's DNA or print, connection between the drugs and the condition of the child when she was found and connection between the medicine and the night of the murder.

Common sense is seeing some thing explained away because Jason was wearing gloves and other things included because he wasn't wearing gloves. It seems he was putting on and removing gloves the entire time he supposedly murdered his wife,

 

[Cammy]

How much time is added to the return trip for purchasing gas?

Spivey said he made about 6 trips, and one of the trips was 2 and a half hours, but, not all of them.......

You really can not create an exact timeline unless it was the nite Jason was driving.

Weather, winds, traffic, accidents, roadblocks, etc would have to be taken into consideration.

Det. Brent David also said it took almost 3 hours.

Besides, if it only took 2 and 1/2 hours, why did LE have to check the airport?

The defense will ask Spivey this....:wink:

 

[Mama-cita]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the laws. However, I can't imagine MF denying CY her family on her father's side. I'm sure they would work out visitation.

Well let's hope it's supervised and someone uses their FOOT to hold the bathroom door open, ala Jeannie G.D. I agree she wouldn't treat them like the criminals the Youngs treated MF and LF. But I still hope nothing unsupervised. I don't trust the Brevard bunch at all...

 

[Cammy]

No proof you say?

How about Cassidy's DNA on the dropper and no fingerprints on the dropper?

If CY was not given the medicine, how did her DNA get on the end of the dropper?

Who innocently gives a child medicine with a dropper and wears gloves so as not to leave fingerprints?

That doesn't even make sense.

Hell yes, she was given medicine that night. The bottle with the adult Tylenol looked like it had only been used one time. The bottle was just about full.

Come on. Use common sense here.

There is absolutely no proof CY was drugged.
She was never tested.
It is one of the theories that LE came up with to explain how she could
be alone so long in the home.
They also issued a search warrant that she was taken from the home in Michelle's Lexus.
Does that make more sense?

 

[otto]

I have watched Gracie's testimony from both trials..

She is one of the witnesses that really could have sealed the deal in this case.

"They said they needed me, that my information was important"

I think that the fact that the prosecution is trying so hard to have her testimony validated tells us how important it is to their case. We know police canvassed up and down the highway looking for a gas purchase witness. What they came up with was a woman that can't remember much of anything at a place with no video surveillance. I think they know it's weak, and the testimony from Taft didn't help.

 

[Mama-cita]

Can anyone tell me whether the "I could kill you for not letting me finish the grass" e-mail was presented into evidence?

 

[Cammy]

My common sense is looking for some connection between evidence on the medicine and Jason's DNA or print, connection between the drugs and the condition of the child when she was found and connection between the medicine and the night of the murder.

Common sense is seeing some thing explained away because Jason was wearing gloves and other things included because he wasn't wearing gloves. It seems he was putting on and removing gloves the entire time he supposedly murdered his wife,

Exactly.....you are so good at getting to the point.
You make perfect sense !!

 

[Madeleine74]

This is right. And further, many of the prisons in NC do not allow contact visits with children.

I see we have a(nother) attorney among us. Thought Mr Grit was the only one here. Always good to get accurate legal info!

BTW, I may seem like I'm always against the accused, but that isn't true at all. Just ask dgfred about that vis a vis the Amanda Knox case. (I was on the innocent side there).

 

[tarheel8600]

There is absolutely no proof CY was drugged.
She was never tested.
It is one of the theories that LE came up with to explain how she could
be alone so long in the home.
They also issued a search warrant that she was taken from the home in Michelle's Lexus.
Does that make more sense?

There is circumstantial evidence (the adult Tylenol, the Pancof PD, and the dropper with no fingerprints in her bedroom found on Friday, Nov. 3rd) and there is direct evidence (CY's DNA on the medicine dropper and lab results showed that the adult medicine and Pancof PD was in the dropper).

What do you need other than this that she was drugged that night?

 

[tarheel8600]

I see we have a(nother) attorney among us. Thought Mr Grit was the only one here. Always good to get accurate legal info!

BTW, I may seem like I'm always against the accused, but that isn't true at all. Just ask dgfred about that vis a vis the Amanda Knox case. (I was on the innocent side there).

Me too.

 

[Cammy]

I think that the fact that the prosecution is trying so hard to have her testimony validated tells us how important it is to their case. We know police canvassed up and down the highway looking for a gas purchase witness. What they came up with was a woman that can't remember much of anything at a place with no video surveillance. I think they know it's weak, and the testimony from Taft didn't help.

Agent Tart was the best.
You could see he did not even want to admit what he wrote down.
That she couldn't remember.

But, when the news carrier was not only found but called LE to say
he had not witnessed anything, that was the end.

jmo

 

[gritguy]

Two examples: HC argued in the BC trial that the testimony of a 4.5 year old should be inadmissible. But the utterings of a 2.5 year old should come in, in this case. Sure, you can say Brad said the girls were sleeping, but he also left the home for more than 15 minutes to go to the store, and it is entirely likely that his daughter saw NC during that time frame.

The testimony of GC is heralded as golden, but the testimony of over a dozen eye witnesses was disregarded as attention seeking in the BC case.

On the second point of the eyewitnesses, I would offer a different perspective. I think the DA must assess all the evidence and reach a conclusion as to whether the defendant should be tried and is guilty. This evidence is disclosed to defense of course. It seems reasonable for the DA not to take a stand of eyewitnesses are always reliable or always wrong, but to weigh that against other evidence and make decisions on proferring that way, the judge and defense being there to keep things in balance for what the jury hears, and it is they who ultimately decide the worth of that testimony. Once the DA is convinced (and remains so) the case is well-founded, they as you know then seek the win, hopefully within the bounds of the rules and equity.

I guess I'm saying I think taking different stands on eyewitness testimony does not to me indicate a deviation from the search for truth, if that testimony is honestly assessed. I thought in the BC case 1) the evidence was razor thin for conviction (personal opinion correct though) and 2) the attorneys were WAY closer to the line wrt what you are saying when it came to technical evidence. My recollection is cringing at some arguments made to the court on that, when it appeared the court was not well understanding some of the computer type evidence.

Still, as somebody who defended Nifong to lay friends until the truth came out, I'm well reminded there are no absolutes on human behavior. DA's aren't always good, I agree.

On the daughter's testimony in BC, no comment on that (to the relief of all) since I don't remember the circumstances.

:twocents:

 

[oakayfine]

This was a 'canvass', basically going store to store asking for information about a person (reason undisclosed).

The judge ruled it was proper and done correctly.
(I was at the hearing and he was very clear there was no error by LE)

Just because the DT insinuates it was improper procedure, doesn't mean it was.
Defense attorneys are not paid to seek the truth.
.

Very true BUT ... do the jurors realize that the DT are making these insinuations OR do they actually believe that the police did not "follow proper procedure"?
It is definitely smoke and mirrors but we still can only hope that the Jury understands that difference and sees through the smoke and mirrors.

It is really sad and I hope and pray that this jury will see this THANG for what IT is. A Slayer, as already declared in the civil suit.

 

[otto]

Exactly.....you are so good at getting to the point.
You make perfect sense !!

It's just that I can't resolve gloves for strangulation, hand caused injuries and medicine, but no gloves for prints on the moulding. It doesn't add up ... it's separating the evidence into small pieces and explaining why each implies guilt in isolation, but the whole, rather than the sum of the parts, has Jason repeatedly popping those gloves on and off for one hour and five minutes.

Regarding the medicine, there are knives in the drawer and supposedly a gun in the closet. Similar to the medicine, there's nothing to connect the knives or the gun to the murder.

 

[Cammy]

There is circumstantial evidence (the adult Tylenol, the Pancof PD, and the dropper with no fingerprints in her bedroom found on Friday, Nov. 3rd) and there is direct evidence (CY's DNA on the medicine dropper and lab results showed that the adult medicine and Pancof PD was in the dropper).

What do you need other than this that she was drugged that night?

There was unidentified fingerprint lifted from the dropper/cap.....did not belong to MY or JY.......

Hope this helps.....