Jason Young to get new trial #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
citygirl said:
Thank you. A good refresher. I hadn't seen that recently. Mr Fisher was clearly intent on sizing up his SIL after the murder. The chameleon. MOO.
Click to expand...

You know I am open minded. I missed the first trial because I was following the debacle in Orlando. But, I was convinced after following the 2nd trial that he was guilty. Do I think that LE zoomed on him from the start? Probably, but he gave them reason too. It appears that even his friends and Michelle's family did too. Who wouldn't want to help find the real killer of your wife and the mother of your child if you were innocent. That just doesn't make any sense to me. IMO only.
 
citygirl said:
Does that mean that you discount the defense witnesses that saw cars in the driveway?
Click to expand...

I don't discount them just like I don't discount Gracie. They should be evaluated for their credibility in the same way. However, in general, I wouldn't give them a lot of weight. Unless there was a specific reason for them to notice that driveway, and recognize it as the Young's, I would argue that they are only somewhat credible, and I believe it is within reason that they misremembered details.
 
oenophile said:
I don't discount them just like I don't discount Gracie. They should be evaluated for their credibility in the same way. However, in general, I wouldn't give them a lot of weight. Unless there was a specific reason for them to notice that driveway, and recognize it as the Young's, I would argue that they are only somewhat credible, and I believe it is within reason that they misremembered details.
Click to expand...

The other witnesses describing the lights all being on at the Young home were familiar with the neighborhood and knew that this was something out of the ordinary, same with the car they saw. They also did not have memory problems or suffered a severe accident in their childhood like Gracie.
I would have to give their testimony much more credibility. JMO.
 
citygirl said:
18.07 mark. They asked her what vehicle he was driving and she said a white SUV. No photo of the car was shown to her prior to that. Only the defendant's photo was shown.
Click to expand...

Okay, that is what they said. We don't really know how it went down, as there were are conflicting reports from Gracie and the detectives. The real point I see is that the detectives themselves admit that they only showed her pictures of Jason and his SUV and asked her if that was the man and his car. That is not good detective work. Witness identification via lineups and when using photographs have been a standard practice for decades, hopefully in most law enforcement agencies. I was really surprised to learn that NC only codified that requirement in 2007 to enhance the suspect identification process and reduce the number of false identifications.

I really donot understand why anyone would defend or accept an identification made using such tactics. Those law enforcement officers were not gree. They were experienced and well knew that they were leading their witness, even though they were not violating any policies or laws in place at the time. However, the idea is to accurately identify a suspect, not ensure that the prime suspect is fingered.

That is the first big problem that I have with Gracie's testimony. The second problem that I have is that her description of Jason as being a little taller than herself and having a little hair on his head does not jibe with Jason's actual appearance. This is something she repeated on the stand. Also, Gracie could not describe the clothes Jason was wearing , or anything else about him.

Those are the main reasons I distrust Gracie's memory. There are a few other items that have been covered also which just add to the problems, but I did not need them. No one has explained, rationally why Gracie should be considered as reliable when she could not identify any of the clothing Jason was wearing and the description that she did give does not match him at all.

Glenn
 
JusticeFever said:
The other witnesses describing the lights all being on at the Young home were familiar with the neighborhood and knew that this was something out of the ordinary, same with the car they saw. They also did not have memory problems or suffered a severe accident in their childhood like Gracie.
I would have to give their testimony much more credibility. JMO.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. Terry Tiller testified in both trials. People have stated that her testimony changed. I didn't see that. In both trials she stated between 3 and 3:30. I think she is credible. She also saw a white minivan. Probably Travis Branch. He testified he never saw anything unusual. Then we have Cynthia Beaver. She saw the white minivan too but SWORE it wasn't the regular carrier. Yet Travis testified he was in the neighborhood that night. Cindy said she had never seen any carrier prior to that night. Then she allowed as how she didn't have the paper delivered to her house. If so, how would she be able to claim it was a different carrier? Felt sorry for her. She got confuzzled over time. Then her boss, James Arrington, kinda undermined her credibility. And the prosecution did very well on cross.

So who is left? Mrs. Hinsley. Loved, loved her!
 
Glenn101 said:
Okay, that is what they said. We don't really know how it went down, as there were are conflicting reports from Gracie and the detectives. The real point I see is that the detectives themselves admit that they only showed her pictures of Jason and his SUV and asked her if that was the man and his car. That is not good detective work. Witness identification via lineups and when using photographs have been a standard practice for decades, hopefully in most law enforcement agencies. I was really surprised to learn that NC only codified that requirement in 2007 to enhance the suspect identification process and reduce the number of false identifications.

I really donot understand why anyone would defend or accept an identification made using such tactics. Those law enforcement officers were not gree. They were experienced and well knew that they were leading their witness, even though they were not violating any policies or laws in place at the time. However, the idea is to accurately identify a suspect, not ensure that the prime suspect is fingered.

That is the first big problem that I have with Gracie's testimony. The second problem that I have is that her description of Jason as being a little taller than herself and having a little hair on his head does not jibe with Jason's actual appearance. This is something she repeated on the stand. Also, Gracie could not describe the clothes Jason was wearing , or anything else about him.

Those are the main reasons I distrust Gracie's memory. There are a few other items that have been covered also which just add to the problems, but I did not need them. No one has explained, rationally why Gracie should be considered as reliable when she could not identify any of the clothing Jason was wearing and the description that she did give does not match him at all.

Glenn
Click to expand...

Well, let's get to the meat of it. You distrust LE and think they were looking to nail the defendant and I disagree. MOO.
 
Glenn101 said:
Okay, that is what they said. We don't really know how it went down, as there were are conflicting reports from Gracie and the detectives. The real point I see is that the detectives themselves admit that they only showed her pictures of Jason and his SUV and asked her if that was the man and his car. That is not good detective work. Witness identification via lineups and when using photographs have been a standard practice for decades, hopefully in most law enforcement agencies. I was really surprised to learn that NC only codified that requirement in 2007 to enhance the suspect identification process and reduce the number of false identifications.

I really donot understand why anyone would defend or accept an identification made using such tactics. Those law enforcement officers were not gree. They were experienced and well knew that they were leading their witness, even though they were not violating any policies or laws in place at the time. However, the idea is to accurately identify a suspect, not ensure that the prime suspect is fingered.

That is the first big problem that I have with Gracie's testimony. The second problem that I have is that her description of Jason as being a little taller than herself and having a little hair on his head does not jibe with Jason's actual appearance. This is something she repeated on the stand. Also, Gracie could not describe the clothes Jason was wearing , or anything else about him.

Those are the main reasons I distrust Gracie's memory. There are a few other items that have been covered also which just add to the problems, but I did not need them. No one has explained, rationally why Gracie should be considered as reliable when she could not identify any of the clothing Jason was wearing and the description that she did give does not match him at all.

Glenn
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that if Gracie had been 100% rock solid concrete unwavering unshakable & unbreakable, Jason would have been arrested immediately...that clearly did not happen.

I wanted to thank you for your well thought out posts that you take time the time to share. :cheers:
 
citygirl said:
Well, let's see. Terry Tiller testified in both trials. People have stated that her testimony changed. I didn't see that. In both trials she stated between 3 and 3:30. I think she is credible. She also saw a white minivan. Probably Travis Branch. He testified he never saw anything unusual. Then we have Cynthia Beaver. She saw the white minivan too but SWORE it wasn't the regular carrier. Yet Travis testified he was in the neighborhood that night. Cindy said she had never seen any carrier prior to that night. Then she allowed as how she didn't have the paper delivered to her house. If so, how would she be able to claim it was a different carrier? Felt sorry for her. She got confuzzled over time. Then her boss, James Arrington, kinda undermined her credibility. And the prosecution did very well on cross.

So who is left? Mrs. Hinsley. Loved, loved her!
Click to expand...
I also loved Ms. Hinsley, a very witty old gal who clearly did not drive on Birchleaf while driving to the hair dresser.
 
@citygirl on post #1030 who said "Well, let's get to the meat of it. You distrust LE and think they were looking to nail the defendant and I disagree. MOO."

It's okay to disagree. I stated the reasons why I distrust the LE in that particular scenario. It is based upon the shaky history of eyewitness testimony and how it was obtained. There is a reason that North Carolina codified the procedures. There have been a lot of problems found with eyewitness testimony which has led to wrongful convictions. The way that Gracie's testimony was elicited is a text book example of how to lead a witness. I have no problem with Gracie at all. She was sincere and likable. (I find Jason's character to be a bit less than likable.) But I also think that it is highly probable that she is sincerely mistaken. I have already posted the reasons why, which are based upon actual history and research by different people and agencies.

I was hoping to get a bit more of a reason, fact based rebuttal to my points.

@Grammy Jean on post #1032 who said "I also loved Ms. Hinsley, a very witty old gal who clearly did not drive on Birchleaf while driving to the hair dresser."

That is really not very clear. The real problem was that the detective took her to the Young's residence on Birchleaf Drive rather than have her take him there herself. She recognized the house, and it was on Birchleaf drive, although she said that they were not on Birchleaf Drive. Again, that was poor investigative work. So we will never know where she saw what she testified to. As a juror I would have questions about that.

Terry Tiller's testimony did not change, but her recollection did change from the time she stated on the search warrant being between four and five A.M. to the three to three thirty time she stated in her testimony. We do not know why that changed, whether it was from further reflection or whether from questions fro LE.

Cindy Beaver was the victim of a character assassination. It was her boss who told her that she needed to report what she saw only a few days after the murder. Remember her testimony about how she was treated when her answers did not coincide with what the investigators wished? She was brow beaten to the point that she was ready to not even testify. And she did not testify for the prosecution, so they did there best to trash her.

Glenn
 
Glenn101 said:
@citygirl on post #1030 who said "Well, let's get to the meat of it. You distrust LE and think they were looking to nail the defendant and I disagree. MOO."

It's okay to disagree. I stated the reasons why I distrust the LE in that particular scenario. It is based upon the shaky history of eyewitness testimony and how it was obtained. There is a reason that North Carolina codified the procedures. There have been a lot of problems found with eyewitness testimony which has led to wrongful convictions. The way that Gracie's testimony was elicited is a text book example of how to lead a witness. I have no problem with Gracie at all. She was sincere and likable. (I find Jason's character to be a bit less than likable.) But I also think that it is highly probable that she is sincerely mistaken. I have already posted the reasons why, which are based upon actual history and research by different people and agencies.

I was hoping to get a bit more of a reason, fact based rebuttal to my points.

@Grammy Jean on post #1032 who said "I also loved Ms. Hinsley, a very witty old gal who clearly did not drive on Birchleaf while driving to the hair dresser."

That is really not very clear. The real problem was that the detective took her to the Young's residence on Birchleaf Drive rather than have her take him there herself. She recognized the house, and it was on Birchleaf drive, although she said that they were not on Birchleaf Drive. Again, that was poor investigative work. So we will never know where she saw what she testified to. As a juror I would have questions about that.

Terry Tiller's testimony did not change, but her recollection did change from the time she stated on the search warrant being between four and five A.M. to the three to three thirty time she stated in her testimony. We do not know why that changed, whether it was from further reflection or whether from questions fro LE.

Cindy Beaver was the victim of a character assassination. It was her boss who told her that she needed to report what she saw only a few days after the murder. Remember her testimony about how she was treated when her answers did not coincide with what the investigators wished? She was brow beaten to the point that she was ready to not even testify. And she did not testify for the prosecution, so they did there best to trash her.

Glenn
Click to expand...
Sorry to disappoint. I try to keep my posts short and sweet. I have listened to GB's testimony in both trials and I think she handled cross well. I believe she saw the defendant though with all the other evidence I don't need her testimony.
I don't dislike the defendant. I don't know him personally. I pity him. There are no winners in this tragedy.
Terry Tiller testified twice about the time. Did the defense ever question her about what she said in the search warrant and why the time changed? I don't recall.
It appeared to me that CB was easily rattled. First she saw a wedding ring, then she didn't. She said the driver's hands were illuminated by the pillar lights and the dashboard lights. Next time you are in the car at night notice if your hands are illuminated. She stated the car was at the very end of the driveway ready to pull out. Notice where the pillar lights are situated. They are set back from the road.
Yes, LE should never have taken Mrs. Hinsley to the house. How slick was that? Then she said she was never on Birchleaf!
I hope you find this post more satisfactory. JMO.
 
Glenn101 said:
@citygirl on post #1030 who said "Well, let's get to the meat of it. You distrust LE and think they were looking to nail the defendant and I disagree. MOO."

It's okay to disagree. I stated the reasons why I distrust the LE in that particular scenario. It is based upon the shaky history of eyewitness testimony and how it was obtained. There is a reason that North Carolina codified the procedures. There have been a lot of problems found with eyewitness testimony which has led to wrongful convictions. The way that Gracie's testimony was elicited is a text book example of how to lead a witness. I have no problem with Gracie at all. She was sincere and likable. (I find Jason's character to be a bit less than likable.) But I also think that it is highly probable that she is sincerely mistaken. I have already posted the reasons why, which are based upon actual history and research by different people and agencies.

I was hoping to get a bit more of a reason, fact based rebuttal to my points.

@Grammy Jean on post #1032 who said "I also loved Ms. Hinsley, a very witty old gal who clearly did not drive on Birchleaf while driving to the hair dresser."

That is really not very clear. The real problem was that the detective took her to the Young's residence on Birchleaf Drive rather than have her take him there herself. She recognized the house, and it was on Birchleaf drive, although she said that they were not on Birchleaf Drive. Again, that was poor investigative work. So we will never know where she saw what she testified to. As a juror I would have questions about that.

Terry Tiller's testimony did not change, but her recollection did change from the time she stated on the search warrant being between four and five A.M. to the three to three thirty time she stated in her testimony. We do not know why that changed, whether it was from further reflection or whether from questions fro LE.

Cindy Beaver was the victim of a character assassination. It was her boss who told her that she needed to report what she saw only a few days after the murder. Remember her testimony about how she was treated when her answers did not coincide with what the investigators wished? She was brow beaten to the point that she was ready to not even testify. And she did not testify for the prosecution, so they did there best to trash her.

Glenn
Click to expand...

I hope in the next trial(if there is one) the defense is able to attack GB the same way the state attacked CB.. I would love to know more about GB!!! JMO
 
JusticeFever said:
OT/ from North Carolina, July 15, 2014...another State of Court of Appeals Ruling:

http://www.wral.com/state-court-of-appeals-lifts-stay-for-man-convicted-in-double-murder/13812597/


"After finding that Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong and a police detective allegedly withheld information that could have cleared Howard."
Click to expand...

About a year ago, I read a long story about the Howard case--might have been in the Raleigh newspaper. Nifong and the rest of them need to be hung out to dry.
 
JusticeFever said:
I hope in the next trial(if there is one) the defense is able to attack GB the same way the state attacked CB.. I would love to know more about GB!!! JMO
Click to expand...

Me too.. I hope they rip her to shreds.. A good lawyer would.... Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.... :great:
 
SStarr33 said:
About a year ago, I read a long story about the Howard case--might have been in the Raleigh newspaper. Nifong and the rest of them need to be hung out to dry.
Click to expand...

I do not understand some of these cases in NC.....years to get an arrest, years to go to trial, don't know what the stats are for seeking the death penalty, recently they tried a DP case and jury voted for a life sentence instead, then there are the pleas, Raven Abaroa gets one on a 11-1Guilty Verdict, and Laurence Lovette (convicted of killing Eve Carson) was offered a plea in another murder trial that is just starting, then you got the Peterson mess, and Deaver and the SBI lab, plus Nifong, and then the convictions of Cooper and Young vacated..
What is going on? :eek:
 
SteelerGirl43 said:
Me too.. I hope they rip her to shreds.. A good lawyer would.... Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.... :great:
Click to expand...

Gracie's last names were a little confusing, and then I think she moved and LE couldn't find her for awhile.But, I think the new married name she used at trial is Calhoun now, so she is all settled down and happily married, so at least, that won't happen again....The Prosecutor had to ask her about her name changes.
 
JusticeFever said:
Gracie's last names were a little confusing, and then I think she moved and LE couldn't find her for awhile.But, I think the new married name she used at trial is Calhoun now, so she is all settled down and happily married, so at least, that won't happen again....The Prosecutor had to ask her about her name changes.
Click to expand...
Not sure why this matters? She had fewer husbands than the defendant's conquests during his life with MY, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 4,373 (members: 209, guests: 4,164)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
4,164
Total visitors
4,373
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,510
Messages
18,025,524
Members
229,666
Latest member
HairHawk
Back
Top