State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-28-12

[otto]

Re: PY's cross exam. I did not find the Prosecutor to be overly snarky or condescending towards her. If anything, there were a few times where I thought he let her slide when she failed to answer a question. Like when he asked her if she thought it was in Cassidy's best interest to not know that her Aunt and her Grandmother cared for her and wanted to have a relationship with her. And rather than answer, she just sat there.

I believe today's cross exam pretty clearly exposed PY's agenda. The things she could recall in minute detail all had to do with making Jason look better or look not guilty of this crime. The things she could not recall were things that made him look bad or look guilty. And she did that over and over and over again.

And I noticed the Defense attorney had no redirect questions. I think he just wanted to get her off the stand at that point.

I don't know whether I watch a whole lot more trials than others, but I have surely seen cross exams that were much, much harder on the witness than anything I've seen in this trial. Even Jeff Ashton in the CA trial was snippier than this guy was today. And Mark Geragos in the Peterson trial got pretty snide at times.

How Jason left no evidence in house or car: There was one point during his direct exam when he was describing his job duties in one of his jobs. He said it was selling some kind of medical equipment or device in which he was required to actually go into the Operating Room. Anyone who has spent any time at all in an OR knows how messy a place it can get to be. Especially during a total hip replacement. This is one of the messiest of surgeries - the docs wear white disposable medical coveralls and a clear plastic helmet type of thing that looks like a "spaceman helmet". And they are using saws and drills and hammers. And the blood is often flying.

So if you have seen surgery and you've seen the type of protective equipment used to protect against blood spatter and you watch CSI shows and you decide to kill your wife....
you dress appropriately for the job. Hair net covering, zip up coveralls, gloves.

Now, as for shoewear, in order to mislead investigators you purchase shoes two sizes too small. You flatten down the heel area in order to turn them into "slip ons" like the backless type of slip ons. And you make shoe prints with them. On purpose.

Then you strip off all the protective gear and you change back into your own size 12 Hush Puppies. Oh, but wait! Drat, the child is awake and in the room with her mother's body and blood! And your impulse to grab the child is so strong that you forget that you have your own Hush Puppies on your feet now. And by the time you remember it, you've already tracked blood onto the carpeting in the size 12s.

What to do, what to do? Got to get the kid to sleep somehow. (This little girl is lucky to be alive!) And while you are doing that you get to think about the shoe prints. And since you've picked up the child with MY's blood on her feet, you are going to have to dispose of your clothing. You know you can't get rid of the size 12 shoeprints because Luminol will find them. All that's left is to put on third pair of shoes (had to move the body to get into the closet to get another pair of shoes?) and BE CAREFUL. And make up a story about no longer owning any Hush Puppies.

And all of these unexpected complications made him be late for his scheduled appointment.

The missing Hush Puppies and the missing clothing are his greatest weakness, aren't they? So that's where the Prosecution should concentrate during the closing.

I think he mentioned medical booties. That doesn't explain the size 12 prints. Medical outfit doesn't explain the missing clothing.

 

[Cammy]

Even if I did miss that someone posted that Jason knew the brother of the investigating officer, the implication is that the officer lied on the stand in his official capacity. That's pretty serious ... so the prosecution, instead of questioning him in court, made the implication through the suspect's mother. If the prosecution was prepared to stand behind accusing the officer of dishonesty and absence of moral intergrity, the prosecution should have had the decency to accuse the man to his face while he was testifying.

I cannot overlook this because the prosecution was reading someone's facebook page and learned new information ... so they ran with it ... and implied that an officer was dishonest. That seems to be the rumor. The officer deserved an opportunity to respond to allegations of that nature. If the prosecution missed their chance, that's their problem and the oficer should not have had his reputation placed in question. That's how I see it and that's unfortunate for the officer.

Introducing evidence about the car accident but excluding the investigating officer, hearing a day after he testified that his brother knew Jason ... doesn't work for me. Why wasn't he introduced at the same time as the theory about the accident? We know it's not because his brother knew Jason.

I hope the defense was privledged to the same info......
Strange , huh?

 

[3doglady]

Otto,
The trooper who testified was not the friend of JY. When the trooper arrived there was a deputy on site and this is who they are saying was friends with Jason.

Thanks

 

[Cammy]

He wasn't thinking about insurance money when he was halfway through a quiet, grieving five hour drive and realized that he couldn't afford the house. I'm sure a lot of things go through one's mind when learning that a spouse is dead ... including finances ... apparently winning the lottery wasn't on his mind.

I guess the shock factor makes us all do and say things at the time of a loved one's death, we sometimes don't even remember saying or doing later.

Jason's choice of words did not help him , though.

 

[Cammy]

I don't believe Cindy Beaver's testimony. In some cases, it differs substantially from what she testified to in the last trial. Hopefully, the prosecution can bring out that inconsistency in the rebuttal.

I do, and the Pros tried way too hard to discredit her and failed.
I doubt the Pros will mention CB again, I think they will now distance
themselves from her.
The fact that LE leaned on her so hard, came across as scare tactics.

jmo

 

[fredwomble]

The point that makes the accident 20/20 hindsight attempted murder is the rumor that she just happened to have removed her seatbelt to reach for her skin cream in the back seat at the same moment that the car went into the river. That unbuckled seat belt made the accident suspicious. Now we know that she was wearing her seatbelt as that is the evidence that was presented at the time.

Nothing else about the accident is suspicious.

We know what the accident report states, and it's apparent that Jason - ahem - manipulated Michelle to falsify the report. "We won't get insurance if you tell them you weren't wearing your seat belt!" No reason for the officer to believe anything other than what he reported, and no problem with his testimony. Knowing the entire picture now, it's clear this was the first attempt.

I do, however, believe it was unnecessary to delve deeply into this attempt. That's between Jason and God, and I reckon He is plenty down on Jason for more reasons than the failed attempt.

 

[3doglady]

Actually I didn't think HC hurt the officer by questioning PY about the deputy's relationship. If I were on the jury I would have thought: ok, if there were anything to that the PT would have brought it out on cross. Since HC just asked PY about it, I would have thought HC was just blowing smoke.

 

[Wolfpack]

We know what the accident report states, and it's apparent that Jason - ahem - manipulated Michelle to falsify the report. "We won't get insurance if you tell them you weren't wearing your seat belt!" No reason for the officer to believe anything other than what he reported, and no problem with his testimony. Knowing the entire picture now, it's clear this was the first attempt.

I do, however, believe it was unnecessary to delve deeply into this attempt. That's between Jason and God, and I reckon He is plenty down on Jason for more reasons than the failed attempt.

How is that apparent? What makes the testimony of SS override that of the trooper, and his personal accounts with MY?

 

[pjcitizen]

On Cindy Beaver. She said the car was in the driveway parked with the headlights on pointing towards the street (assumption is that the people are getting ready to leave the property). But, she also said the light posts were on and the "house was lit up" (don't remember if she said this last trial too). Did MF testify that she found the lights on in the house? I don't remember hearing that MF found the lights on or that the police found the lights on, anybody know?

(I added the bold for highlighting)

Great question. According to CB, when the 2 people were leaving the house was lit up. Were most of the interior lights on?

 

[fredwomble]

How is that apparent? What makes the testimony of SS override that of the trooper, and his personal accounts with MY?

Shelly Schaad would have what reason to lie about what Michelle Young told her? I'm sure it wasn't a hard sell for Jason to convince her to go with seat buckled - they had a lot at stake for insurance purposes. And again, why would Michelle lie to Shelly, and why would Shelly lie or make up something out of virtual thin air? Telling the trooper she wasn't wearing a seat belt risked a misdemeanor or trouble with insurance claim. Telling Shelly Schaad the truth later, far less risk...and again, what motive would Michelle have had to lie to Shelly, and what motive would Shelly now have to lie? But hey, defense team, impeach the murdered pregnant woman...go ahead.

 

[CGW]

So was he invisible to keep it from capturing him?? LOL!! Im not being snarky or a SA.. Just not understanding how he was able to unplug a camera or tilt it up & it not capture him walking up to it...

A camera is not panoramic (sp?) capturing view from North South East and West, it captures in one direction and someone could approach it from the sides or from behind to alter it before "coming into view". He already knew where the camera was from when he arrived at the hotel and I'm sure scoped out the camera situation discreetly. When JY returned to the hotel and saw the rock was no longer in the door, he knew that the camera may have been fixed too, so he approached carefully out of view and pointed that sucker to the ceiling. IMO

 

[Wolfpack]

Shelly " Schaad would have what reason to lie about what Michelle Young told her? I'm sure it wasn't a hard sell for Jason to convince her to go with seat buckled - they had a lot at stake for insurance purposes. And again, why would Michelle lie to Shelly, and why would Shelly lie or make up something out of virtual thin air?

Perhaps she's been prompted by the Prosecution team to create something out of nothing. I'm sure she'd do it if she thought it would assist in putting the person she believes killed her best friend behind bars.

 

[3doglady]

(I added the bold for highlighting)

Great question. According to CB, when the 2 people were leaving the house was lit up. Were most of the interior lights on?

CB also said the pillar lights at the driveway were on. Were they on when MF got there?

 

[Lucky89]

How is that apparent? What makes the testimony of SS override that of the trooper, and his personal accounts with MY?

The trooper did not interview MY. He stated she was there and after talking to JY he did not need to speak with her.

 

[Lucky89]

CB also said the pillar lights at the driveway were on. Were they on when MF got there?

yes the pillar lights were on!

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Then why didn't he just go by himself? Again, why not just stop on the way out to Raleigh? Why so insistent to go without CY in the car?

Do we know if he forced MY to go with him?

 

[hindsight2020]

A camera is not panoramic (sp?) capturing view from North South East and West, it captures in one direction and someone could approach it from the sides or from behind to alter it before "coming into view". He already knew where the camera was from when he arrived at the hotel and I'm sure scoped out the camera situation discreetly. When JY returned to the hotel and saw the rock was no longer in the door, he knew that the camera may have been fixed too, so he approached carefully out of view and pointed that sucker to the ceiling. IMO

This is exactly the way I think it was done!

 

[traveler]

The point that makes the accident 20/20 hindsight attempted murder is the rumor that she just happened to have removed her seatbelt to reach for her skin cream in the back seat at the same moment that the car went into the river. That unbuckled seat belt made the accident suspicious. Now we know that she was wearing her seatbelt as that is the evidence that was presented at the time.

Nothing else about the accident is suspicious.

Why is it not suspicious? It was a beautiful, bright sunny day on a road JY travels on regularly. MY told several people she did not have her seatbelt on....don't forget, hindsight 20/20 also applies to Michelle's voice. Do you really think she thought her life was in danger (at the hands of her husband at the time?). Of course she told the responding officer she was wearing her seatbelt. Why was JY so insistant on going to a place they were going to pass by on the way out to Raleigh? Why so insistant to go without CY in car? When was the LI policy initiated again? Highly suspicious, IMO.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

I don't know the person who posted it, but it makes sense. If the PT had known, I think they would have loved to question the officer about it. That would have put his testimony in a different light.

Can they bring him in on the rebuttle?? They brought in the IT person in the CA case after CA lied about her time card.....

 

[Cammy]

Otto, did you get a chance to see the PI's testimony from today?

I had always wondered who the 4th person was at the defense table.

His name is Steven Hale, and he was awesome.

He conducted his own investigation at the Hampton Inn, pretty powerful stuff.

I was really impressed and liked this guy.....

jmo