State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-27-12

[Tipstaff]

State troopers are trained to look for anything and everything as part of their job description.

They can tell if an accident is alcohol related, or someone just wants to

do enough damage to collect from their auto insurance.

Trooper Hicks not only investigated this accident once, he was asked to do so again..

Both times, he found nothing wrong or suspicious....

Otto has posted the accident report showing how Jason tried to over correct his turn........if the state trooper wanted to change his report or his mind anytime in the last 5-6 years, he has had plenty of time to do so.

Including today on the witness stand, he did not.

That is enough to convince me........jmo

He was an excellent witness, btw.

He should have spoke with MY alone - he might have gotten different answers.

 

[otto]

This is the accident report. Michelle testified that she was wearing her seatbelt. Do you think that she would have testified that she was not wearing her seatbelt if she was speaking alone with the officer? How might her testimony have changed, and what would have prevented her from contacting the officer at any time after the accident to change the information she provided?

 

[Luna24]

How did Genevieve Cargol get involved with that imp? She is a gorgeous, seemingly smart and capable woman. Yet she too went as far as engagement and even continued to see him after the attack in the hotel room. Smart, attractive, capable women have fallen for the worst of the worst from time immortal.

I agree Madeleine - but sociopaths (which I believe strongly JY is) can be very charming. It's funny to read this list and charming is at the top - how many others apply to JY right off the top: Superficial charm, need for stimulation or proneness to boredom, pathological lying, manipulative, shallow effect, lack of remorse or guilt (always MY's fault despite him cheating left and right), promiscuous sexual behavior, etc...I think almost every item on this list applies to JY:

http://www.sociopathicstyle.com/traits/classic.htm

Poor MY.

 

[Tipstaff]

This is the accident report. Michelle testified that she was wearing her seatbelt. Do you think that she would have testified that she was not wearing her seatbelt if she was speaking alone with the officer? How might her testimony have changed, and what would have prevented her from contacting the officer at any time after the accident to change the information she provided?

The officer indicated MY did not disagree with the statement JY gave. In hindsight don't you wonder?

The DT sure made a point to try and clear up the suspicion that this was JY's first attempt to injure MY. JMO

 

[justbetweenus]

This is the accident report. Michelle testified that she was wearing her seatbelt. Do you think that she would have testified that she was not wearing her seatbelt if she was speaking alone with the officer? How might her testimony have changed, and what would have prevented her from contacting the officer at any time after the accident to change the information she provided?

Thanks Otto. Would they have a seatbelt law? Where I am we would be charged for not having one. I'm not saying MY is lying, just that it could be a reason to lie during a report.

 

[parker38]

The more I read and see of this trial the more I see shades of
the Peterson west trial lol With Mrs. Peterson trying to convince
everyone of Scott's innocence and what a good boy he always was
thru the years!!!hoh:
For me and only my thoughts they can try JY again and again and
again and he will still be guilty to me. I don't believe in a random
killing here and then I ask myself who else?? moo

 

[otto]

The officer indicated MY did not disagree with the statement JY gave. In hindsight don't you wonder?

The DT sure made a point to try and clear up the suspicion that this was JY's first attempt to injure MY. JMO

If the attending officer determined that it was an accident and the prosecution has attempted to present that accident as attempted murder, I'd be suspicious of the prosecution. If I were on the jury, I would be asking why the prosecution didn't speak to the officer, rather than friends, to get the facts. I would want to know why the prosecution wants people to believe rumor over eyewitness testimony. I would be questioning why the prosecution had people testify that Michelle was not wearing a seatbelt when the facts on record as presented to the officer are that she was wearing a seatbelt.

 

[CGW]

I’ve been lurking for days now. Finally got my registration set up. I personally believe the circumstantial evidence in this case is OVERWHELMING. JY would have to be the unluckiest man on earth to have that many coincidences happen on the one night his wife is brutally murdered. There are 3 pieces of the puzzle that really stand out to me and I think are unable to be explained by any other possibility than JY was the likely murderer. These 3 pieces are the removal of the diaper, the fact that CY was carried to the bathroom, and the movement of the cameras at the HI that fit perfectly with the timeline. They seem small, but it’s difficult to explain away. I know the NG believers would love to have found that diaper in JY’s car, or believe that CY had wings or a child loving murderer in her presence that night, and fingerprints on the cameras. JY was prepared with gloves and trashbags….plain and simple…he covered his tracks. No Stranger would bother removing a diaper and carry a child to a safe area. There is nothing "reasonable" about that. Any one of these “pieces” do not point to guilt, it is the sheer volume of CE. These pieces added together paint a picture of brutal killer. I hate the burden of proof has become more difficult it seems b/c of technology. Juries want video, dna, etc….It’s absurd that common sense is not being applied like it should to overcome the burden of “reasonable doubt”. I don’t make these statements lightly. I firmly believe that there is only one thing worse than letting a guilty man go free and that is locking up an innocent one. IMO

 

[otto]

Thanks Otto. Would they have a seatbelt law? Where I am we would be charged for not having one. I'm not saying MY is lying, just that it could be a reason to lie during a report.

I have wondered that as well ... but why would anybody lie about the circumstances of an accident? That's foolishness, in my opinion.

 

[Luna24]

Not likely in this case PY lived ~5hours from JY/MY and made infrequent visits. I think this is a list JY gave to his mother, I may be wrong.

I agree..

Life is pretty busy right now - I'm not even sure I could list everything that was missing in my own house, much less my sister's house who lives 4 hours away, who I only see every month or so...

 

[johnfear]

Yeah. Reasonable Doubt, Smeasonable Doubt. Lock 'em all up.

 

[CGW]

If I missed this someone please correct me, but I don't believe I heard JY's sister or mother ever referring to MY as being murdered, definitely not brutally murdered. That really stands out to me. It's just like, "Oh well, she died" - no shock or horror of the truth that happened to her. There was no mention that their brother or son could have been killed had he been at home or how blessed they were that CY was safe. No mention that JY demanded that he find out who did this or who came that close to his daughter while killing his wife. To me this family screams cover up.

I totally agree. Loved the step father admitting he didn't ask JY anything b/c the less I know and the less JY says is best. Really? Sounded like he was suspicious of JY from the get go!

 

[ynotdivein]

:wagon: to the :rollercoaster: CGW! Glad you came out of :lurk: dom to join us.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

I’ve been lurking for days now. Finally got my registration set up. I personally believe the circumstantial evidence in this case is OVERWHELMING. JY would have to be the unluckiest man on earth to have that many coincidences happen on the one night his wife is brutally murdered. There are 3 pieces of the puzzle that really stand out to me and I think are unable to be explained by any other possibility than JY was the likely murderer. These 3 pieces are the removal of the diaper, the fact that CY was carried to the bathroom, and the movement of the cameras at the HI that fit perfectly with the timeline. They seem small, but it’s difficult to explain away. I know the NG believers would love to have found that diaper in JY’s car, or believe that CY had wings or a child loving murderer in her presence that night, and fingerprints on the cameras. JY was prepared with gloves and trashbags….plain and simple…he covered his tracks. No Stranger would bother removing a diaper and carry a child to a safe area. There is nothing "reasonable" about that. Any one of these “pieces” do not point to guilt, it is the sheer volume of CE. These pieces added together paint a picture of brutal killer. I hate the burden of proof has become more difficult it seems b/c of technology. Juries want video, dna, etc….It’s absurd that common sense is not being applied like it should to overcome the burden of “reasonable doubt”. I don’t make these statements lightly. I firmly believe that there is only one thing worse than letting a guilty man go free and that is locking up an innocent one. IMO

he's smart enough to do all that but not wear a different pair of shoes???

 

[Grammy Jean]

I too would love to know more about the man's platinum wedding band that is reported to be missing from the house as well. How in the heck can JY or his family explain that one? He went on a work trip and decided to not wear his wedding band? And MY was cool with this after her knowledge of his numerous affairs? I really don't think so. Also, from that list the missing jewlry appears to be from either a jewlry box or MY's ring finger on her left hand so where in the heck was this man's wedding band at? Did JY just happen to have it stashed in his new wallet with his $500 cash in his closet? As someone upthread pointed out.......something is reallllllly stinky.

MOO

So Jason forgot his wedding band but remembered his condoms.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

If the attending officer determined that it was an accident and the prosecution has attempted to present that accident as attempted murder, I'd be suspicious of the prosecution. If I were on the jury, I would be asking why the prosecution didn't speak to the officer, rather than friends, to get the facts. I would want to know why the prosecution wants people to believe rumor over eyewitness testimony. I would be questioning why the prosecution had people testify that Michelle was not wearing a seatbelt when the facts on record as presented to the officer are that she was wearing a seatbelt.

:welcome:

 

[johnfear]

So Jason forgot his wedding band but remembered his condoms.

And he forgot to put the diaper back on the baby. Nobody puts baby in her diaper.

 

[giltee]

I have wondered that as well ... but why would anybody lie about the circumstances of an accident? That's foolishness, in my opinion.

I can see why she would lie about the seat belt as well. There may be a clause in the auto insurance policy, if they were not wearing the seat belt they may not pay the claim. The vehicle was totalled, they cashed in 17K.

JY attempted to do the same with a homeowner's warranty for a broken heat pump, purchase the the warranty first and then make the claim to have it fixed, sounds fishy to me, but it turns out it was legal according to his friends testimony.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

If the attending officer determined that it was an accident and the prosecution has attempted to present that accident as attempted murder, I'd be suspicious of the prosecution. If I were on the jury, I would be asking why the prosecution didn't speak to the officer, rather than friends, to get the facts. I would want to know why the prosecution wants people to believe rumor over eyewitness testimony. I would be questioning why the prosecution had people testify that Michelle was not wearing a seatbelt when the facts on record as presented to the officer are that she was wearing a seatbelt.

Desperate maybe??? IMO

 

[CeeKer]

Originally Posted by Stella5
Just "stopping by" momma's house on this trip just doesn't sit well with me. It's a 3 1/2 hour trip from his appointment in Virginia to his mom's; and only 4 1/2 hours from Raleigh to his mom's. He wasn't anywhere in the vicinity for a convenient little visit. It was all about setting up his alibi, IMO.

Absolutely...they had people coming to stay at their house that night for the game the next day...don't believe that was planned at all.

I agree Stella he wasn't exactly "in the vicinity". But it makes me wonder... Assuming he did commit the murder, wouldn't it have made more sense for him to pack up and hightail it home ASAP after his meeting and find the murder scene himself? Heck he could have worn his bloody hush puppies right into the room and had a plausible explanation for any evidence/footprints he might have left. (Just kidding with that, well sort of, I realize the blood would have dried) Plus that way he would have "found" CY himself and not needed to use the bizarre (imo) "paper in the printer" excuse? And he'd also have a ready excuse for CY ever telling anyone daddy "was there". I mean he had a decent (sort of) alibi so why bother going to his mom's house?