State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-8-12

janesdean · Feb 8, 2012

Cammy said:
I have to admit, this is not a good day for Jason too, Otto.

You are right.

For once, you and I are in complete agreement !

otto · Feb 8, 2012

Cammy said:
Elmer Goad is up, he is the maintance guy at the Hampton,

not that I have ANY sound anywhere.

Does this link not work? It says on the feed that the left channel audio is the only one working.

http://www.wral.com/news/video/10690077/#/vid10690077

MyBelle · Feb 8, 2012

Cammy said:
I have to admit, this is not a good day for Jason too, Otto.

You are right.

I'm not seeing it as all that bad.

JMO

octobermoon · Feb 8, 2012

Cammy said:
Can anyone hear him?

try clearing your browser history

NCEast · Feb 8, 2012

MyBelle said:
She came across as very confused last time and it hurt the prosecution more than helped. The jury didn't know she was brain damaged and still voted majority not guilty.

JMO

I agree, she was confused and a little bit 'off'. However, again I blame the prosecution for not settling her down, guiding her through her testimony, reviewing things with her, etc. They didn't do a blasted thing to help her recover and rehabilitate their own witness and she came across as being very mixed up to put it nicely.

fran · Feb 8, 2012

Bottle Cap said:
Agreed. It's not the retaining-an-attorney part that's disturbing - its that he never spoke. If his attorney advised him not to assist in finding the killer of his pregnant wife, they must have thought he was going to incriminate himself right outta the gate. Wonder why they'd think such a thing?

The attorney probably heard the 911 tape!

just sayin'
fran

nursebeeme · Feb 8, 2012

MyBelle said:
Huh? It was the truth. Cops were able to prove his alibi independently and the prosecution's only hope of proving he had the opportunity is with the testimony of a brain-injured woman.

JMO

insofar as I am seeing it the entire case is circumstantial on both sides... and nothing is rock solid or we would not be here for the second time.:twocents:

sureLocke · Feb 8, 2012

MyBelle said:
My brother is a criminal attorney and he always advises his clients not to talk to police. It has nothing to do with whether he thinks they are guilty and has everything to do with providing his client with the best legal advice.

JMO

There is not an attorney alive that I will allow to prevent me from helping find my spouse's killer. I would get a different attorney.

Cammy · Feb 8, 2012

MyBelle said:
I'm not seeing it as all that bad.

JMO

Oh, it is going to get better !!

:wink:

gracielee · Feb 8, 2012

Wyn said:
Good to see you too, Janesdean. You'll probably see more of me elsewhere. My tolerance for, shall we say, "fluff" is down, although I'm very happy the trial seems to be going extremely well for the prosecution this time around.

I switch back & forth. Tolerance is a virtue I strive towards but don't always succeed. :fence:

fran · Feb 8, 2012

MyBelle said:
How does an innocent spouse help cops find the person who killed their spouse? Talking to cops won't help find the killer if the killer is unknown to the spouse.

JMO

I seem to recall he wouldn't even do a walk through with LE to tell them if anything had been stolen.

Nope, he'd already lawyered up, even before he came back to town on Day 1.

If that doesn't point towards guilt from the get go, I don't know what does.

JMHO
fran

MyBelle · Feb 8, 2012

janesdean said:
Usually an attorney will advise you not to speak to LE w/o an attorney present, tons of people speak to LE when someone is murdered. If you didn't you'd be high on their radar ! Innocent people who love their significant other WANT to help because they want justice, they want the killer caught.
Jasons' attys probably knew his story sounded bogus, so they advised don't talk at all LOL

I don't find anything funny about our Constitutional rights or an attorney protecting his client. I can only go by what my brother tells me. I've never been a suspect in a criminal investigation but I work with law enforcement and know most criminal attorneys don't trust them and the feeling is mutual.

JMO

Madeleine74 · Feb 8, 2012

Exactly Wyn & Janes Dean!

Getting a lawyer is totally fine and, I think, is actually a good idea.

Refusing to ever speak to anyone or even ask questions about the investigation is strange. Of course everyone's rights need to be protected. That doesn't preclude providing information that may help an investigation. Can someone explain to me why a (supposedly loving spouse who lost their wife and unborn son) would hope that the case was never solved and an arrest was never made? (this has not been entered into evidence yet, but JY said this in an email to his sister).

What could a spouse know? Lots of things. It's not up to him (or her) to decide what may or may not be of value.

I've said it before but it bears repeating: those with nothing to hide, hide nothing.

NCEast · Feb 8, 2012

otto said:
I would consider it quite normal for someone to tell his spouse his schedule before leaving on a business trip. The testimony of friends, as we saw in the Brad Cooper trial, can sometimes be subjective.

I don't think his sharing his plans with MF were meant for anything other than to have a witness, SS, there to hear him as well.

Cammy · Feb 8, 2012

nursebeeme said:
insofar as I am seeing it the entire case is circumstantial on both sides... and nothing is rock solid or we would not be here for the second time.:twocents:

:seeya: Nurse !!

I like your take on the case !!

And, speaking of rocks, this case has one.

NCEast · Feb 8, 2012

MyBelle said:
He had no choice really. She's the state's only witness and she's brain-damaged. The jury needs to know that.

JMO

She may be brain damaged, but she is working, holding down a job,,,,, counting money, greeting customers, etc. So she's certainly capable of recalling what happened that morning.

NCEast · Feb 8, 2012

otto said:
Today isn't a good day for Jason because all his bad behavior as an irresponsible husband is coming out. Also, the fact that he listened to the advice of lawyers is turned a little bit upside down and used to imply that he was uncooperative regarding interest in his wife's murder.

It is what it is.

distracted 1976 · Feb 8, 2012

Cammy said:
Okay, I am making tuna fish sandwiches white, rye, wheat, or toast?

I'm still trying to take off the extra pounds that I put on during CA trial. :maddening: Better make mine wheat w/ light everything!
TIA!

nursebeeme · Feb 8, 2012

Cammy said:
:seeya: Nurse !!

I like your take on the case !!

And, speaking of rocks, this case has one.

I look forward to hearing more about this "rock"

and also... this isn't aimed at your post...in any way

and lands at random: but there is a lot of snark around these parts and it needs to stop. If anyone sees snark in their post self edit or:

:nurse:

fran · Feb 8, 2012

MyBelle said:
It's the judge's decision. I agree with his conclusion that the jury determines credibility and should know about a key witness' permanent brain damage.

JMO

On the flip side, IF the def attorney starts bullying the witness, making them APPEAR dumb, the jury is NOT going to think very kindly of him or his attorney. The jury, IMHO, would be sympathetic to the witness and MAY believe them more because they see their appearance as a witness a great personal sacrifice, putting the witness in a fishbowl.

See, the def attorney's game face/attitude has a LOT to do with the final verdict.

JMHO of course!
fran

State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-8-12

New Member

Verified Expert

Former Member

Active Member

Active Member

Former Member

Registered User

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Former Member

Former Member

Knower of Things

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Registered User

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics