Michelle Young, pregnant mom, murdered Part 17

athy said:

yes the family member should but i also imagine they're between a rock and a hard place if they're not sure the person did it only think they did. they don't want to accuse the person of it just in case its not true. god i'm glad i'm not in that situation.

Click to expand...

Yea, how true. I'm thinking Jason had a good solid base from growing up in his family. He had some problems to deal with in job tenure, but I think that was because he didn't really enjoy his jobs, wishing he had followed his dream into textiles. He had a lot of friends which is a positive. But I don't think Jason has really felt secure about what he is as a man. The one thing we know he adored was Cassidy.

I think he is a candidate to crack mentally, and could see him even having a breakdown if an arrest is imminent. Then he will tell his mother I think.

As a comparison to Jason, and only out of interest here, my brother was the baby in our family with 5 older sisters. Our Dad was gone most of the time on business, but the marriage was solid. Well this big squirt did win voice contest after voice contest once he started singing and taking lessons, soon was at Tanglewilde where L Bernstein was directing, and sang his debut concert at Carnagie Hall.

He loves his life now, doing concerts {sang tenor in the cathedral at Duke Univ. last fall}, a college prof too, and yes he is gay. But he is really self assured, and well adored by us all. He never told our P's about this, they just kind of figured it out I think.

I hope Jason isn't guilty even though it seems everything leads to him so far. I wish he could have followed his dream like my baby brother did!

Here's an odd thought :innocent:
Anyone besides me notice that no matter what name or what board Jake posts on he is consistent in screaming from the rooftops that Jason has not talked to anyone including the family but most especially his family and friends? That's his story and he's sticking to it. :dance:

jake said:

I was thinking more like someone who saw the crime scene before it was cleaned up. Suppose that person saw something the police accidentally missed. Not likely, but suppose he/she did. Just wondering if that person could be arrested as a material witness.

--Jake

Click to expand...

I don't think that would be a material witness. It would be second hand, like heresay, and to be a material witness we have now learned that means an eyewitness. She's off the hook! ;} Now if he were to tell her something that would be first hand and it would qualify. How LE would ever find out about that though, I don't know. Scandi

jake said:

If something were found and not given to LE or to Jason's attorney, would that not be obstruction of justice rather than material witness?

If the tooth were not given to LE, could the finder not say she thought it wasn't important since LE left it behind? Could the same argument not be used for anything else found, say bloody sheets or bloody socks?

--Jake

Click to expand...

Yes, I think if someone was in the house after LE and the Forensic team released the house to the family, before the cleaning crew came in, and someone found something {other than the tooth I think} and kept it, I think they would be obstructing justice. They took something from THE crime scene.

It wouldn't have been Meredith as she was there before the forensic team went in. It would be Jason's sister I guess. There must have been a good reason she kept it. It has been contaminated for evidence now, and don't think Smith could use it as a case in point at trial.

I guess it depends on if whoever found it is really concerned with justice for Michelle. I have watched too many Forensic Files shows where the teeniest thing was of major importance in the case. If they left bloody anything they knew about it. I can't imagine why they would do this?

OMG, Sorry for all the posts lined up in a row! Baa Haa Haa Haa Haa

scandi said:

Yea, how true. I'm thinking Jason had a good solid base from growing up in his family. He had some problems to deal with in job tenure, but I think that was because he didn't really enjoy his jobs, wishing he had followed his dream into textiles. He had a lot of friends which is a positive. But I don't think Jason has really felt secure about what he is as a man. The one thing we know he adored was Cassidy.

I think he is a candidate to crack mentally, and could see him even having a breakdown if an arrest is imminent. Then he will tell his mother I think.

As a comparison to Jason, and only out of interest here, my brother was the

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that about your brother Scandi. Fantastic story; you must be very proud.

Re jy - I'm not so sure that his employment record had anything to do with him not enjoying his jobs. I'm thinking that this guy is a bit irresponsible. Take his spending habits from what we've heard, for example. It may also be that he had a problem working for people in that he resented authority; a hothead. Seems like he wanted to be a high roller and perhaps he thought he should start any job at the top rather than stick with it and work his way up the ladder.

I actually thought there was a good chance of him cracking right after the murder when he was reportedly walking around Brevard looking like a zombie.
I'm not so sure now because he ran back to mama and she got that towel out and wiped his tears making it all better. His mother took charge. She got him a lawyer, spoke to LE on his behalf, went back to Raleigh with him and apparently went to NY with him & Cassidy to see Michelle's dad. No way, imo is jy going to confess to her. She believes in him and he can't disappoint her. Besides, now he's got one of the best law firms in the State. Boy...do you remember Scott Peterson when he made his first appearance in Court - scared to death. Next time we see him, he STRIDES into the courtroom SMILING, with a new suit, new hairdo & Geragos by his side!

If this guy is ever charged, it's gonna be interesting to see what happens. Just as long as when he enters his plea he doesn't fall plumb to his knees!

scandi said:

OMG, Sorry for all the posts lined up in a row! Baa Haa Haa Haa Haa

Click to expand...

Never mind about that - I enjoy reading your posts!:blowkiss:

I love yours too Jilly! I about cracked up reading your next to the last post!~ Baa Haa Haa Haa Haa Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:clap: That was good the way you just got that little line in there perfectly. ;}

scandi said:

Yes, I think if someone was in the house after LE and the Forensic team released the house to the family, before the cleaning crew came in, and someone found something {other than the tooth I think} and kept it, I think they would be obstructing justice. They took something from THE crime scene.

It wouldn't have been Meredith as she was there before the forensic team went in. It would be Jason's sister I guess. There must have been a good reason she kept it. It has been contaminated for evidence now, and don't think Smith could use it as a case in point at trial.

I guess it depends on if whoever found it is really concerned with justice for Michelle. I have watched too many Forensic Files shows where the teeniest thing was of major importance in the case. If they left bloody anything they knew about it. I can't imagine why they would do this?

Click to expand...

Maybe the whole point of jake's comment is to make people question the police and their handling of the case??? Like Jeff MacDonald?? JY and his "friends" cannot criticize the police for accusing him in the media because there has been very, very little released in the media regarding this case-the police aren't talking period. So, perhaps they are trying from a different angle???

I wonder if Jake is not talking about himself and that blood smear "sighting" in the shower stall.

Or I'm thinking the material witness business is about a witness who may not be available - as in someone who travels or lives out of state, etc., that may have to be arrested to make sure that they are in N.C. at the time their testimony is required.

Just random thoughts on my part......

less0305 said:

I wonder if Jake is not talking about himself and that blood smear "sighting" in the shower stall.

Or I'm thinking the material witness business is about a witness who may not be available - as in someone who travels or lives out of state, etc., that may have to be arrested to make sure that they are in N.C. at the time their testimony is required.

Just random thoughts on my part......

Click to expand...

which is another reason they would arrest a material witness. there has to be a reason to arrest someone other than just the fact they know something. something that would prevent them from testifying willingly.

No riddles from me. This whole murder investigation is a riddle to me. I try to figure it out by reading and posting here.

I am on the far fringe of things. I "hear" things but don't know if the information is true. I hesitate to post things as true when I can't verify them. So I try to verify by being vague about things, hoping it will fit with someone else's information. If it doesn't, I drop it.

For example: I "heard" yesterday that a News and Observer reporter was in town asking questions, seeking comments. That seems harmless enough so I share the information. Nothing startling.

--Jake

I see nothing mysterious or misleading in the posts I made yesterday. Others seem to think I am posting riddles. Not on purpose I'm not:

The "material witness" post? Since several of us saw the house after the police were through, I wonder if our amateur observations make us material witnesses.

LE sees blood on the shower wall: "Jason took a shower after he killed her." I see the blood: "The killer took a shower."

LE sees no bloody footprints: "Meredith was naturally excited and so exaggerated. Means nothing." I see no bloody footprints: "Who was taking care of Cassie and the dog?"

LE sees Michelle's injuries: "Jason was extremely angry about something and went crazy in here." I see the AR of injuries: "Looks like two different weapons and two killers."

"Obstruction" charge? If we "found" things in the house, such as bloody bed linen, bloody socks, etc., are we obligated to give them to LE? I think not, since LE thought those things were not evidence. But I thought I would get another opinion from those of you with more experience than I have.

--Jake

Good Morning,

I understand your position Jake, and I am sure we are all thankful that there is an investigative reporter out and about, trying to tie something down in the case.

But you did raise two thought provoking questions yesterday, and am wondering if they have meat to them. The possibility something was taken from the crime scene before the cleaning crew came in, and the possibility that Meredith knows something detremental about Jason that she might not want to share with LE.

Scandi

jake said:

I see nothing mysterious or misleading in the posts I made yesterday. Others seem to think I am posting riddles. Not on purpose I'm not:

The "material witness" post? Since several of us saw the house after the police were through, I wonder if our amateur observations make us material witnesses.

LE sees blood on the shower wall: "Jason took a shower after he killed her." I see the blood: "The killer took a shower."

LE sees no bloody footprints: "Meredith was naturally excited and so exaggerated. Means nothing." I see no bloody footprints: "Who was taking care of Cassie and the dog?"

LE sees Michelle's injuries: "Jason was extremely angry about something and went crazy in here." I see the AR of injuries: "Looks like two different weapons and two killers."

"Obstruction" charge? If we "found" things in the house, such as bloody bed linen, bloody socks, etc., are we obligated to give them to LE? I think not, since LE thought those things were not evidence. But I thought I would get another opinion from those of you with more experience than I have.

--Jake

Click to expand...

Perhaps you see what you want to see and LE sees what their training and experience allows them to see.

jake said:

I see nothing mysterious or misleading in the posts I made yesterday. Others seem to think I am posting riddles. Not on purpose I'm not:

The "material witness" post? Since several of us saw the house after the police were through, I wonder if our amateur observations make us material witnesses.

LE sees blood on the shower wall: "Jason took a shower after he killed her." I see the blood: "The killer took a shower."

LE sees no bloody footprints: "Meredith was naturally excited and so exaggerated. Means nothing." I see no bloody footprints: "Who was taking care of Cassie and the dog?"

LE sees Michelle's injuries: "Jason was extremely angry about something and went crazy in here." I see the AR of injuries: "Looks like two different weapons and two killers."

"Obstruction" charge? If we "found" things in the house, such as bloody bed linen, bloody socks, etc., are we obligated to give them to LE? I think not, since LE thought those things were not evidence. But I thought I would get another opinion from those of you with more experience than I have.

--Jake

Click to expand...

unless you were there during the murder or the murderer told you he/she did it, i doubt if just because you were there after the fact you would be considered a material witness.

i agree that when Meredith said bloody footprints all over the place in that moment she was exagerating. understandably so also. it doesn't necessarilly mean someone was taking care of cassidy. i know with my own kids, as i've said before, if my door was shut they knew not to open the door. we don't know if their bedroom door was shut. Meredith could have opened the door and cassidy wanting to see mommy went running inside ahead of her. another thing my kids did if my door was opened and they knew or thought i was asleep was to go wander around the house, get themselves something to eat, watch tv. omg learned early don't be asleep when they wake up usually end up with cereal all over the floor.

i can also understand why LE would think upon seeing blood in the shower that it was JY. MOST stranger (meaning someone that wasn't living in the house) murderers wouldn't have the nerve to stick around and clean themselves up other than a quick washing their hands in the sink. they wouldn't know if someone would come home. they also would realise that taking a shower would mean their DNA would/could be all over the place. someone who would know their DNA would already be there and could easily be explained away, could possibly safely and comfortably take a shower.

about the injuries. usually if two weapons or two people were involved the injuries wouldn't be all in the same area, they would be more spread out as really, have two people swinging at same time and they'll probably be hitting each others weapon instead of the person. her injuries were all in one area, less room for two people to aim at. also as i told you once before on a different board. if it were two people involved it would make better sense for the one to have held her from behind to keep her there and to give the other person a better chance. if that were the case they would have probably held her from behind as that would mean less chance of injury to themselves and she would have been injured from the front not from behind.

jake said:

I see nothing mysterious or misleading in the posts I made yesterday. Others seem to think I am posting riddles. Not on purpose I'm not:

The "material witness" post? Since several of us saw the house after the police were through, I wonder if our amateur observations make us material witnesses.

LE sees blood on the shower wall: "Jason took a shower after he killed her." I see the blood: "The killer took a shower."

LE sees no bloody footprints: "Meredith was naturally excited and so exaggerated. Means nothing." I see no bloody footprints: "Who was taking care of Cassie and the dog?"

LE sees Michelle's injuries: "Jason was extremely angry about something and went crazy in here." I see the AR of injuries: "Looks like two different weapons and two killers."

"Obstruction" charge? If we "found" things in the house, such as bloody bed linen, bloody socks, etc., are we obligated to give them to LE? I think not, since LE thought those things were not evidence. But I thought I would get another opinion from those of you with more experience than I have.

--Jake

Click to expand...

Ok, gotcha.
Just one thing from your post that I quoted I want to ask about. You say LE saw no bloody footprints so MF exaggerated because she was excited. Why do you think LE didn't see any bloody footprints? Very true that there may not have been any after the house was released but before it was cleaned but that doesn't mean they weren't there when LE went in, right?

I think it's very possible something was done in the shower by the perp whether it be taking a shower or just cleaning up the murder weapon or even something else. I am still of the opinion that the killer cleaned up the crime scene in some way that was obvious to LE right away. Combine that with no forced entry and of course LE assumes it's not random. What they think now I do not know. Seems to me any killer would not want to leave prints and dna around for LE. In the Harvey case in Richmond where it was a home invasion they set fire to the house and that was their MO in some of the other acts but not all. RC can best describe the Vitale case but I think he said Dyleski didn't take a shower but rather cleaned up in the shower. His bloody clothes were found later soaking in oxy clean.

jake said:

I see nothing mysterious or misleading in the posts I made yesterday. Others seem to think I am posting riddles. Not on purpose I'm not:

The "material witness" post? Since several of us saw the house after the police were through, I wonder if our amateur observations make us material witnesses.

LE sees blood on the shower wall: "Jason took a shower after he killed her." I see the blood: "The killer took a shower."

LE sees no bloody footprints: "Meredith was naturally excited and so exaggerated. Means nothing." I see no bloody footprints: "Who was taking care of Cassie and the dog?"

LE sees Michelle's injuries: "Jason was extremely angry about something and went crazy in here." I see the AR of injuries: "Looks like two different weapons and two killers."

"Obstruction" charge? If we "found" things in the house, such as bloody bed linen, bloody socks, etc., are we obligated to give them to LE? I think not, since LE thought those things were not evidence. But I thought I would get another opinion from those of you with more experience than I have.

--Jake

Click to expand...

Material witness-I don't think you would be, but if you would like to read up on this, go to the nc legislature website and read 15A-803-it is good reading. Remember, I've mentioned this before.

I know you would like to think that cops all have a one track mind when it comes to JY, but I highly doubt that's the case. I think they are doing a good job investigating the case and that means looking at JY along with anyone else the evidence points to. No matter who it points to there is going to be someone unhappy about it. Although there are corrupt policeman, there are also corrupt businessmen, lawyers, doctors and even medical software salesmen! LE does not wake every day and wonder what innocent person they can frame and send to jail that day. They are hard-working, honest people who put themselves in danger every day to protect us.

I can't imagine what it would be like to find a loved one after they have been murdered. After you have been through a trauma, I imagine your ability to view and describe things in an exactly detailed manner would be hindered. That's why eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. No one (including you) knows exactly where M was and where she went when she found MY, so it may not be accurate for you to make assumptions upon seeing a crime scene after it's been processed. Just because you saw something in a certain place (or didn't) doesn't mean it was exactly like that right after the murder.

Doesn't look like two people were there to me and if they were, that just increases the likelihood that there would be foreign DNA. How could there be a huge struggle between 3 people & only MY's DNA was left there? If LE has foreign DNA why aren't they saying so-oh, is it to torture JY? Sounds like you're joining the J. MacDonald school of thought regarding evidence on that one-again.

It's up to LE to determine what is evidence and what is not. It's not up to you. What may seem important to you may not be and something you deem unimportant may be very important. I still find it very hard to believe you aren't just bringing this up to attack the credibility of LE or to make us believe they just left a bunch of possibly important things just laying around in the hopes that we are all going to say-"The cops are idiots! JY must be innocent!" But then, if JY would have actually spoken with the police to try to help find his wife & son's murderer maybe he would have found out the answer to this question (and some others) already.

strach304 said:

Ok, gotcha.
Just one thing from your post that I quoted I want to ask about. You say LE saw no bloody footprints so MF exaggerated because she was excited. Why do you think LE didn't see any bloody footprints? Very true that there may not have been any after the house was released but before it was cleaned but that doesn't mean they weren't there when LE went in, right?

Click to expand...

That's true. I don't know what the place looked like when LE went in. But LE cleaned nothing else so I doubt they cleaned footprints.

--Jake