Live Feed:
http://www.wral.com/news/video/10690077/
Judge's Instructions to the Jury
_____________________________________
Bringing over some late night comments:
"The absence of leaving evidence is not evidence of absence," Cummings said.
Read more here:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/01/1896657/closing-arguments-begin-in-jason.html#storylink=cpy
Great words from HC especially since there are missing shoes, shirt, and jeans. JMO
That struck me as a cliche from a CSI program.
Seriously ... the absence of evidence, meaning there is no evidence that someone was in a particular room, does not mean that someone was absent from the room. That a is true. The fact that you can't prove I was in the room doesn't mean I wasn't there. However, if there's nothing to connect that person to the room at the critical time, then it should not be assumed or concluded that the person was there and responsible for something that happened in the room. It's not a statement that should be taken to heart when it comes to determining guilt, in my opinion.
Fromageball, you basically summed up my stance on the case in your last paragraph! If I was a member of that jury I would probably not be able to vote GUILTY.
I am puzzled by who else would've done it, though!
I listened to the early part of the afternoon closing arguments, but there were a lot of interruptions after that so maybe I got the wrong impression. I thought the prosecution did an excellent job of painting a picture of what could have happened if you look at the evidence as a series of coincidences that all facilitated Jason committing murder. The defence did point out that many of the elements in the painting could not be verified ... and if the prosecution didn't address the gas issue ... at least one guy is going to look at it.
As for who else it could be? One of the first places police looked was at the trailer park on the other side of the trees behind the Young's house. That coincided with the testimony from the friend that was visiting Michelle the night she was murdered ... that she was spooked by something possibly in the back yard. No suspect was identified and the focus returned to the husband.
___________________________________________________
Put on the coffee ... I'm looking forward to hearing law for 2nd degree murder. I find that a bit absurd. Are we to believe that Jason drove 170 miles home, for no reason, got there, accidentally murdered his wife, drove back to the hotel and then covered up the crime?
Will there be an instruction that Jason had the right to remain silent during an investigation into his wife's murder when he is the only suspect?
The daycare testimony is interesting because if the child spontaneously identified the mother figure, and the eldely mother figure represented the father figure, why didn't she also name him? She was close to her father, there's no doubt about it. Why did she only identify the mother?
What resonates from the defence is: let's suppose that Jason didn't give the Hush Puppies away, that they werei in his closet ... I hope we can assume he wasn't wearing 1.5 year old shoes to the sales meeting. So, he's not wearing the old Hush Puppies for the meeting but they might have been at his house ... and what ... he murdered his wife wearing size 10 shoes that he pulled out of his back pocket, then pulled the old Hush Puppies out of the closet to make more prints and then he put on different shoes to return to the hotel and had yet another pair of shoes in the back of the vehicle?