Jason Young to get new trial

jova33 · Apr 19, 2014

MyBelle said:
I am so sorry about your son. I know kids that young can't comprehend death but the degree of violence inflicted upon Michelle produced a lot of blood and the blood would have left an impression on Cassidy if she had witnessed it, imo. I think she was sound asleep when the attack happened and Michelle was dead by the time CY saw her. Which then begs the question as to where CY was in all those hours that she remained clean.

Here's a theory. There was one attacker. Attacker goes overboard and kills her in a drunk rage. Attacker freaks, leaves the scene, calls a friend or two. Friend or two come back, help clean the scene, and take CY and clean her at a different location. They can't keep CY, so they bring her back at a later hour.

Makes more sense than the prosecution's theory.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

MyBelle · Apr 20, 2014

jova33 said:
Here's a theory. There was one attacker. Attacker goes overboard and kills her in a drunk rage. Attacker freaks, leaves the scene, calls a friend or two. Friend or two come back, help clean the scene, and take CY and clean her at a different location. They can't keep CY, so they bring her back at a later hour.

Makes more sense than the prosecution's theory.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

It does make more sense but it also is a theory that points to someone who knew JY was out of town AND who knew when he intended to return. That narrows it to coworkers, neighbors, friends, family, daycare workers. Did cops ever consider anybody else is a question I'd like answered.

jova33 · Apr 20, 2014

MyBelle said:
It does make more sense but it also is a theory that points to someone who knew JY was out of town AND who knew when he intended to return. That narrows it to coworkers, neighbors, friends, family, daycare workers. Did cops ever consider anybody else is a question I'd like answered.

Or someone watching the house. If they had been watching for a day or more, they would've seen JY packing up his car and leaving for the night. Or even if they didn't see him leave, they would've seen only one car in the garage.

Edit: I know the DNA lab tested against 24 samples of DNA. Half were the cops', then family members, then friends and JY.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Landonsmom02 · Apr 21, 2014

jova33 said:
Here's a theory. There was one attacker. Attacker goes overboard and kills her in a drunk rage. Attacker freaks, leaves the scene, calls a friend or two. Friend or two come back, help clean the scene, and take CY and clean her at a different location. They can't keep CY, so they bring her back at a later hour.

Makes more sense than the prosecution's theory.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

IF CY saw anyone other than JY there that night don't ya think the Youngs would have blasted it from the mountain tops of Brevard? IMO,they know she saw JY there and that is why they kept her away from the Fisher's. Common sense is all you need to solve this case. And if there were more than 2-3 people helping this "drunken" person, why would they help? What is stopping them from reporting this to the cops?

I heard that the teacher from Brevard (GoJo) who defended JY on the internet has passed? Is that true? Does anyone know?

Madeleine74 · Apr 21, 2014

I have DNA in my home that isn't mine. Why? Because I'm not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 4th owner of this 25 yr old house. No matter how much the house has been cleaned since I've owned it, I guarantee there is someone else's DNA in addition to mine, probably several people, and probably a few animals too. Plus, my guests would have left their DNA as well. Some of it would have been cleaned, but I bet a CSI would still find plenty in addition to some fingerprints.

I always found it interesting there was a blood spray pattern on the wall, in MY's blood, except in the place where a partial hand print was found and that print's DNA, with blood spray around but not on it, did not exclude JY as the person who left that print.

jova33 · Apr 21, 2014

Madeleine74 said:
I have DNA in my home that isn't mine. Why? Because I'm not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 4th owner of this 25 yr old house. No matter how much the house has been cleaned since I've owned it, I guarantee there is someone else's DNA in addition to mine, probably several people, and probably a few animals too. Plus, my guests would have left their DNA as well. Some of it would have been cleaned, but I bet a CSI would still find plenty in addition to some fingerprints.

I always found it interesting there was a blood spray pattern on the wall, in MY's blood, except in the place where a partial hand print was found and that print's DNA, with blood spray around but not on it, did not exclude JY as the person who left that print.

DNA degrades over time if not stored properly. They're not going to find a viable sample of the previous owner's DNA in your house, and they're not going to find the previous owner's DNA on your jewellery box.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

jova33 · Apr 21, 2014

Landonsmom02 said:
IF CY saw anyone other than JY there that night don't ya think the Youngs would have blasted it from the mountain tops of Brevard? IMO,they know she saw JY there and that is why they kept her away from the Fisher's. Common sense is all you need to solve this case. And if there were more than 2-3 people helping this "drunken" person, why would they help? What is stopping them from reporting this to the cops?

I heard that the teacher from Brevard (GoJo) who defended JY on the internet has passed? Is that true? Does anyone know?

This is just theoretical, but I'm saying two people. One killer and one accomplice. And drunk rage is the only way to describe that crime scene. You don't meticulously plan to go commit a rage murder.
And CY never identified the attacker. She was two, almost three. JY didn't want her around the Fishers because they were accusing him of murder. They were pointing the finger at him before there was an investigation.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

Nymeria · Apr 21, 2014

jova33 said:
This is just theoretical, but I'm saying two people. One killer and one accomplice. And drunk rage is the only way to describe that crime scene. You don't meticulously plan to go commit a rage murder.
And CY never identified the attacker. She was two, almost three. JY didn't want her around the Fishers because they were accusing him of murder. They were pointing the finger at him before there was an investigation.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

Playing Devils Advocate here-

If it was "drunk rage" would that person be able to obliterate all traces of themselves so well?
Just saying if drunk, people are generally semi-sloppy.
And I think if a second person was there it would just make it all the more hard to remove evidence (handling a drunk AND trying to "wipe" a crime scene, plus control a toddler).

SapphireSteel · Apr 21, 2014

Madeleine74 said:
I have DNA in my home that isn't mine. Why? Because I'm not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 4th owner of this 25 yr old house. No matter how much the house has been cleaned since I've owned it, I guarantee there is someone else's DNA in addition to mine, probably several people, and probably a few animals too. Plus, my guests would have left their DNA as well. Some of it would have been cleaned, but I bet a CSI would still find plenty in addition to some fingerprints.

I always found it interesting there was a blood spray pattern on the wall, in MY's blood, except in the place where a partial hand print was found and that print's DNA, with blood spray around but not on it, did not exclude JY as the person who left that print.

Handprints are as unique as fingerprints so why was it not identified, if it was Jasons?

"not excluded"? How????

So that's fingerprints on a hotel security light, not JY's, and a handprint on their wall, might be JY's, might not.

Sorry but that opens up reasonable doubt, for me at least. Those prints MUST be explained.

Also, DNA is not "everywhere" in a clean house. DNA is left behind by body oils such as sweat. Some crime scenes they find no DNA at all, especially if the victim was houseproud.

jova33 · Apr 21, 2014

Nymeria said:
Playing Devils Advocate here-

If it was "drunk rage" would that person be able to obliterate all traces of themselves so well?
Just saying if drunk, people are generally semi-sloppy.
And I think if a second person was there it would just make it all the more hard to remove evidence (handling a drunk AND trying to "wipe" a crime scene, plus control a toddler).

That's why I'm theorizing two suspects. Maybe the drunk, intoxicated, or just plain engaged person snapped to after the attack and realized what had been done.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Madeleine74 · Apr 21, 2014

jova33 said:
DNA degrades over time if not stored properly. They're not going to find a viable sample of the previous owner's DNA in your house, and they're not going to find the previous owner's DNA on your jewellery box.

Please cite the source for that assertion. DNA degrades over time if there's something environmental to degrade it. Fingerprints etc would not necessarily degrade. It all depends.

And what amount of time are you talking about? Can you say who was in the Young's house, when they were in the house, and what visitors touched what items? Was there a party? A gathering? Socializing at some recent point in the 6 months before the murder? Unless you can source the circumstantial evidence of fingerprints and DNA and put them in a specific timeframe to the murder, they don't prove involvement.

Madeleine74 · Apr 21, 2014

Sapphire,

If you're just coming into this case you have a ton of homework to do to catch up. There are many, many threads that cover the evidence in great detail. There's also trial video online and full coverage of each piece of evidence, as presented in court. Have fun!

SapphireSteel · Apr 21, 2014

Madeleine74 said:
Sapphire,

If you're just coming into this case you have a ton of homework to do to catch up. There are many, many threads that cover the evidence in great detail. There's also trial video online and full coverage of each piece of evidence, as presented in court. Have fun!

Nah.

Even though I'm expressing doubts via the jury decision, personally, I think he dun it.

His missing clothes are just too much for me to overlook, ditto the life insurance.

otto · Apr 21, 2014

SapphireSteel said:
Nah.

Even though I'm expressing doubts via the jury decision, personally, I think he dun it.

His missing clothes are just too much for me to overlook, ditto the life insurance.

There aren't any missing clothing. Investigators asked about some clothes months after the murder. Whether they were produced or not is neither here nor there, as there could be no chain of custody months after the murder.

Michelle's friend wrote up her insurance policy at Michelle's request. Jason did not cash in, so again, nothing can be concluded about Michelle's decision to have a huge life insurance policy.

MyBelle · Apr 22, 2014

Landonsmom02 said:
IF CY saw anyone other than JY there that night don't ya think the Youngs would have blasted it from the mountain tops of Brevard? IMO,they know she saw JY there and that is why they kept her away from the Fisher's. Common sense is all you need to solve this case. And if there were more than 2-3 people helping this "drunken" person, why would they help? What is stopping them from reporting this to the cops?

I heard that the teacher from Brevard (GoJo) who defended JY on the internet has passed? Is that true? Does anyone know?

Actually, evidence is usually required to convict someone. You seem to want to focus on the Young family as some sort of evil conspiracy and that is grossly unfair, imo. They didn't just lose Michelle, their grandson died in this horrific crime.

Why would the Youngs blast anything at all from the mountain tops? It isn't up to them to prove Jason's innocence, the burden was squarely on the prosecution and the Judge was supposed to ensure a fair trial. The first time around, the prosecution failed and the second time around, the Judge failed.

Now that the appellate court has ruled CY's play observed days later is admissible, that opens the door for Jason's defense team to admit anything CY said to them after the murder. For all we know, she may have said plenty.

JMO

jova33 · Apr 22, 2014

otto said:
There aren't any missing clothing. Investigators asked about some clothes months after the murder. Whether they were produced or not is neither here nor there, as there could be no chain of custody months after the murder.

Michelle's friend wrote up her insurance policy at Michelle's request. Jason did not cash in, so again, nothing can be concluded about Michelle's decision to have a huge life insurance policy.

Also, the police never inventoried the bags taken from JY's SUV when they searched it. I've had my car taken by police, traffic violation, cop was a prick. I said no to a search of my vehicle, but if they impound your vehicle, they can *inventory* the contents of the vehicle. A little fourth amendment workaround. Anyway, the cop wrote down every single item in my car. They didn't do this with JY's vehicle, so who's to say when the clothes ended up missing?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

MyBelle · Apr 22, 2014

jova33 said:
Also, the police never inventoried the bags taken from JY's SUV when they searched it. I've had my car taken by police, traffic violation, cop was a prick. I said no to a search of my vehicle, but if they impound your vehicle, they can *inventory* the contents of the vehicle. A little fourth amendment workaround. Anyway, the cop wrote down every single item in my car. They didn't do this with JY's vehicle, so who's to say when the clothes ended up missing?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

The clothing scenario was absurd from beginning to end. They waited another year or so after he's moved twice and then go looking for clothes that they seized with a search warrant within hours of the crime. That's a reflection of utter incompetence on the part of cops, imo.

otto · Apr 22, 2014

MyBelle said:
Actually, evidence is usually required to convict someone. You seem to want to focus on the Young family as some sort of evil conspiracy and that is grossly unfair, imo. They didn't just lose Michelle, their grandson died in this horrific crime.

Why would the Youngs blast anything at all from the mountain tops? It isn't up to them to prove Jason's innocence, the burden was squarely on the prosecution and the Judge was supposed to ensure a fair trial. The first time around, the prosecution failed and the second time around, the Judge failed.

Now that the appellate court has ruled CY's play observed days later is admissible, that opens the door for Jason's defense team to admit anything CY said to them after the murder. For all we know, she may have said plenty.

JMO

That is very interesting! I hadn't thought of it like that, but since a layperson with no training in early childhood behavior was qualified by the judge to state her perception of a child's actions and 2 year old language, it does open the door for anyone and everyone that observed the child at any time after the murder to add their two cents to the case evidence. That could make things very interesting ... unless a judge decides that only those perceptions that appear incriminating should be heard by the court ... in which case the NC courts will appear persecutorial.

otto · Apr 22, 2014

jova33 said:
Also, the police never inventoried the bags taken from JY's SUV when they searched it. I've had my car taken by police, traffic violation, cop was a prick. I said no to a search of my vehicle, but if they impound your vehicle, they can *inventory* the contents of the vehicle. A little fourth amendment workaround. Anyway, the cop wrote down every single item in my car. They didn't do this with JY's vehicle, so who's to say when the clothes ended up missing?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

If police wanted Jason's clothing, they should have asked for those clothes as soon as he arrived at home. They failed to request the clothes, so those clothes cannot be part of the evidence. It appears that police are attempting to turn their mistakes and an absence of evidence into evidence of guilt.

Landonsmom02 · Apr 22, 2014

MyBelle said:
Actually, evidence is usually required to convict someone. You seem to want to focus on the Young family as some sort of evil conspiracy and that is grossly unfair, imo. They didn't just lose Michelle, their grandson died in this horrific crime.

Why would the Youngs blast anything at all from the mountain tops? It isn't up to them to prove Jason's innocence, the burden was squarely on the prosecution and the Judge was supposed to ensure a fair trial. The first time around, the prosecution failed and the second time around, the Judge failed.

Now that the appellate court has ruled CY's play observed days later is admissible, that opens the door for Jason's defense team to admit anything CY said to them after the murder. For all we know, she may have said plenty.

JMO

BBM

Yes, exactly what I said. Look at the evidence and use common sense!

And, I'm not being unfair toward the Youngs. Just going by trial testimony. They took away visitation with CY because the Fisher's wouldn't publically voice JY innocense. Hmmm...a young child just lost her mother and now she can't see her aunt(who she saw on a regular basis) and her maternal grandmother, the only ties to her mother. That's cruel, imo. Plus if you followed this case from the beginning you would know that his sister posted early on another forum and she was very cruel and said some horrible things about the Fisher's. And yes, I will stand behind what I said. If the Young's had any any knowledge that CY saw someone at the house that night, evidence that would clear their son,brother, etc... they would have let the police know. There is hard feelings on both sides of the family. Either way you look at it both families lost a loved one. I'm not here to cause trouble. IMO, he is guilty and the possibility that he could walk on this is injustice to the victim. I have followed this from November 2006 and at first I did think MF had something to do with it. But there is just too much CE against JY and he was the only one who had something to gain from MY death. I looked at the evidence, read the search warrants and it led me to believe that JY and only JY committed this crime.

Jason Young to get new trial

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

Knower of Things

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Knower of Things

Knower of Things

Well-Known Member

On Time Out

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

On Time Out

On Time Out

Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics