Jason Young to get new trial

[Landonsmom02]

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.

I can't rememeber because it's been so long, but at the time he arrived back in Raleigh, had LEO seen the CCTV footage of JY at the HI?

 

[MyBelle]

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.

My common sense is quite intact, thanks. The fact that his mother-in-law's feelings were hurt is not evidence of his guilt of murder. The appellate court took issue with it and trying to continue it here is a waste of time.

There was no testimony about what the Youngs did or did not tell police about what CY said. There was plenty of testimony and evidence that points to someone other than JY but of course, you can ignore it.

Have a good day!

 

[MyBelle]

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.

yes, the prosecution opened the door very wide and the appellate court kept it open by deciding that an observation of her play which occurred several days after the murder still qualifies as an excited utterance.

I agree, it is going to get quite interesting. We heard her little chatterbox voice on the 911 call. No reason to believe she said absolutely nothing to her father or the Youngs or to any therapist that may have treated her after the murders.

JMO

 

[otto]

I can't rememeber because it's been so long, but at the time he arrived back in Raleigh, had LEO seen the CCTV footage of JY at the HI?

Jason should not have been a suspect when he returned home, but police made it clear to his friends that he was the only suspect. That is, police did not need video footage in order to form an opinion about the prime suspect. Jason's friends told him that police viewed him as the only suspect as soon as the murder was discovered. Those friends told Jason to get a lawyer prior to speaking with police.

Since everyone knew that Jason was viewed as the only suspect immediately after the murder was discovered, police should have done what they thought was necessary to build their case. If they wanted clothing, they should have asked for it right away. For example, they were able to immediately sieze the vehicles and all the contents of the vehicles, so it appears that it was an error on behalf of police that Jason's clothing was not requested.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

Correct, actually it was about 26 months after the murder when they first wrote up a search warrant for the "missing" shirt and shoes.

When police seized the Explorer they should have recorded all of the contents of items found and photographed them. Without that record, we can't hold a person accountable for items police easily may have lost.

Plus, if you're getting ready to go murder someone, why show yourself on a camera at the front desk just before leaving for the crime? That makes no sense. He's clearly concerned about the cameras if we're to believe he tampered with them.

 

[Tia]

The 911 call WAS admissible at trial. It did come in.

It is up to a jury to decide what something "sounds like" to them. But in this case, it was never suggested to the jury that what they heard "sounds like" anything at all. I was surprised so many on message boards wanted to insist they heard something yet it was never introduced as existing at trial.

You aren't understanding what I am saying.........

 

[jova33]

Correct, actually it was about 26 months after the murder when they first wrote up a search warrant for the "missing" shirt and shoes.

When police seized the Explorer they should have recorded all of the contents of items found and photographed them. Without that record, we can't hold a person accountable for items police easily may have lost.

Plus, if you're getting ready to go murder someone, why show yourself on a camera at the front desk just before leaving for the crime? That makes no sense. He's clearly concerned about the cameras if we're to believe he tampered with them.

That was part of his meticulous plan. He had to be seen on one camera showing he was in the hotel, then move and unplug the camera by the exit then admit to going outside twice, once to get his charger, and once to smoke a cigar. Hold up.... Why even admit to stepping outside the hotel if there was never any proof of him stepping out? JY didn't take the stand until all evidence was presented. What would he benefit from lying about stepping outside?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

Correct, actually it was about 26 months after the murder when they first wrote up a search warrant for the "missing" shirt and shoes.

When police seized the Explorer they should have recorded all of the contents of items found and photographed them. Without that record, we can't hold a person accountable for items police easily may have lost.

Plus, if you're getting ready to go murder someone, why show yourself on a camera at the front desk just before leaving for the crime? That makes no sense. He's clearly concerned about the cameras if we're to believe he tampered with them.

The problem with the video camera evidence is that it does not add up properly. There are fourteen (correct me if I'm mistaken) cameras in the hotel (hallways, elevators, exits) and Jason was on the fourth floor of the hotel. If he sneaked in at 6:30AM, and tilted a camera at one exit, why wasn't he seen on any other cameras? That is, if the camera at the exit was such a big concern, why weren't all the cameras tilted or unplugged? Why didn't Jason request a first floor room so that he would have fewer cameras to worry about?

 

[jova33]

The problem with the video camera evidence is that it does not add up properly. There are fourteen (correct me if I'm mistaken) cameras in the hotel (hallways, elevators, exits) and Jason was on the fourth floor of the hotel. If he sneaked in at 6:30AM, and tilted a camera at one exit, why wasn't he seen on any other cameras? That is, if the camera at the exit was such a big concern, why weren't all the cameras tilted or unplugged? Why didn't Jason request a first floor room so that he would have fewer cameras to worry about?

The cameras took one picture every 15 seconds. There's no way JY would've known this, but somehow he did and ran to avoid being caught on camera?

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[MyBelle]

Jason should not have been a suspect when he returned home, but police made it clear to his friends that he was the only suspect. That is, police did not need video footage in order to form an opinion about the prime suspect. Jason's friends told him that police viewed him as the only suspect as soon as the murder was discovered. Those friends told Jason to get a lawyer prior to speaking with police.

Since everyone knew that Jason was viewed as the only suspect immediately after the murder was discovered, police should have done what they thought was necessary to build their case. If they wanted clothing, they should have asked for it right away. For example, they were able to immediately sieze the vehicles and all the contents of the vehicles, so it appears that it was an error on behalf of police that Jason's clothing was not requested.

So many errors in this case is a sign of incompetence, imo.

 

[otto]

So many errors in this case is a sign of incompetence, imo.

I see more than carelessness on behalf of investigators. I also see that information is interpreted with tunnel vision. The cameras at the hotel are a good example of tunnel vision. One camera was unplugged late in the evening, and that same camera was tilted the following morning (close to 6:30AM).

There is no evidence of Jason tampering with the camera at either time. Video surveillance does not place him at the camera at the time of tampering, and fingerprint evidence excludes Jason. One would expect police to conclude that the camera had nothing to do with Jason, but instead police conclude that Jason tampered with the camera. Who needs evidence when one has tunnel vision!

A rock was used to prop open the door at some point during the night. Jason did not need to prop open a door that was unlocked at 6AM. His round trip would place him back at the hotel after the door was unlocked. Police conclude that even though Jason had no reason to prop open the door, he propped open the door. Again, no evidence or logical reasoning is necessary when one has tunnel vision.

Those two facts: tampered camera and propped door are used to infer that Jason is guilty even though there is no reason to connect them with Jason. Jason didn't need to prop open a door that would not be locked, and if he was going to tamper with cameras to avoid being seen, every camera between the exit and his hotel room on the fourth floor should have been tampered with. Police ignore all the other cameras, and connect facts to Jason for no reason other than that the facts bolster their pre-conceived notion that he is guilty. It's bizarre, but not surprising given recent history of shady convictions in North Carolina.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The problem is, time does tend to tell.

For example, since the murder, has there been a repeat attack on anyone else within the vicinity?

If the answer is "no" and we're moving into years rather than weeks, then that itself is significant.

Per Jonbenet - no child murders in that community, ever. Not before her, not since.

If someone did break in, what was the motive for murdering a pregnant lady who is surely among the most vulnerable of our society?

Why kill her (and her unborn baby) yet not the toddler?

The perp "cared" about the toddler but not the unborn baby. This is inconsistent with a random attack.

:twocents:

 

[borndem]

I can't rememeber because it's been so long, but at the time he arrived back in Raleigh, had LEO seen the CCTV folootage of JY at the HI?

Hi, Landonsmom! :seeya:

I can't remember for sure, but they had already done a lot of legwork on the case. Dunno.

Jason went to his Mom's house after his sales appt. Then his folks told Jason about the murder, etc., so Jason & several members of his family left immediately for Fuquay Varina, NC, where Meredith and his daughter were.

The night before, JY was on the Hampton Inn film in the lobby, around midnight, wearing the dark-colored shirt with the white stripe, a particular pair of jeans and wearing the Hushpuppies. He was also wearing the Hushpuppies when he was filmed at the Cracker Barrel (Greensboro or Winston-Salem, NC -- I can't recall which) on the way to the HI.

He was not wearing those clothes when he arrived at his Mom's nor when they arrived in FV. LE immediately seized the vehicle and its contents (including JY's luggage, etc.). The clothes he was wearing at the HI and at the CB were not in his luggage nor in his vehicle. What happened to them?

 

[jova33]

Hi, Landonsmom! :seeya:

I can't remember for sure, but they had already done a lot of legwork on the case. Dunno.

Jason went to his Mom's house after his sales appt. Then his folks told Jason about the murder, etc., so Jason & several members of his family left immediately for Fuquay Varina, NC, where Meredith and his daughter were.

The night before, JY was on the Hampton Inn film in the lobby, around midnight, wearing the dark-colored shirt with the white stripe, a particular pair of jeans and wearing the Hushpuppies. He was also wearing the Hushpuppies when he was filmed at the Cracker Barrel (Greensboro or Winston-Salem, NC -- I can't recall which) on the way to the HI.

He was not wearing those clothes when he arrived at his Mom's nor when they arrived in FV. LE immediately seized the vehicle and its contents (including JY's luggage, etc.). The clothes he was wearing at the HI and at the CB were not in his luggage nor in his vehicle. What happened to them?

It's not determined what shoes he's wearing. The shoes he's wearing in his photos after police have him look a lot like the HP Orbital that could've left the shoe prints. Leads me to believe he replaced them. Edit: There's three other pairs of shoes that had the same tred as the HP Orbitals he purchased over a year before the murder.

As far as the shirt, the police confiscated everything in his SUV, but didn't inventory it. Then they asked for the shirt in question two years later. He didn't wear that shirt to his sales meeting, so he probably changed before he headed back home.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[Madeleine74]

Once again some facts of the case are being recalled (or outright presented) incorrectly. It's like a race is on to see which case facts can be changed the most. Such a shame this happens. FYI, those who want the real facts of the case should reference trial testimony and not count on nuanced or fabricated impressions or twisted memories. :shakehead:

Ever watch Gilda Radner as "Emily Litella" on SNL? Yeah, reading some of this is kind of like watching a version of that, except not as funny as Gilda.

 

[otto]

Once again some facts of the case are being recalled (or outright presented) incorrectly. It's like a race is on to see which case facts can be changed the most. Such a shame this happens. FYI, those who want the real facts of the case should reference trial testimony and not count on nuanced or fabricated impressions or twisted memories. :shakehead:

Which facts are incorrectly recalled?

 

[JusticeFever]

Once again some facts of the case are being recalled (or outright presented) incorrectly. It's like a race is on to see which case facts can be changed the most. Such a shame this happens. FYI, those who want the real facts of the case should reference trial testimony and not count on nuanced or fabricated impressions or twisted memories. :shakehead:

Ever watch Gilda Radner as "Emily Litella" on SNL? Yeah, reading some of this is kind of like watching a version of that, except not as funny as Gilda.

I know !! Look at the post about there being no male dolls for Cassidy Young to choose from @ daycare and no one corrected that until I came along. Then someone said that a suspect had been questioned and released, and we know that never happened. Then someone else said it was a 2 hour drive from JY's home to his meeting.

 

[MyBelle]

I see more than carelessness on behalf of investigators. I also see that information is interpreted with tunnel vision. The cameras at the hotel are a good example of tunnel vision. One camera was unplugged late in the evening, and that same camera was tilted the following morning (close to 6:30AM).

There is no evidence of Jason tampering with the camera at either time. Video surveillance does not place him at the camera at the time of tampering, and fingerprint evidence excludes Jason. One would expect police to conclude that the camera had nothing to do with Jason, but instead police conclude that Jason tampered with the camera. Who needs evidence when one has tunnel vision!

A rock was used to prop open the door at some point during the night. Jason did not need to prop open a door that was unlocked at 6AM. His round trip would place him back at the hotel after the door was unlocked. Police conclude that even though Jason had no reason to prop open the door, he propped open the door. Again, no evidence or logical reasoning is necessary when one has tunnel vision.

Those two facts: tampered camera and propped door are used to infer that Jason is guilty even though there is no reason to connect them with Jason. Jason didn't need to prop open a door that would not be locked, and if he was going to tamper with cameras to avoid being seen, every camera between the exit and his hotel room on the fourth floor should have been tampered with. Police ignore all the other cameras, and connect facts to Jason for no reason other than that the facts bolster their pre-conceived notion that he is guilty. It's bizarre, but not surprising given recent history of shady convictions in North Carolina.

I'm glad I'm not a taxpayer footing the bill for all these retrials. I believe it was also the first time Jason had made that trip and stayed at that hotel. He stopped on the way and had a meal. So, how did he really know how much time it would take to return, murder his wife, clean his child, return and make his appointment? The prosecution's theory is so ridiculous, I have to wonder if there was also jury tampering.

 

[JusticeFever]

The problem is, time does tend to tell.

For example, since the murder, has there been a repeat attack on anyone else within the vicinity?

If the answer is "no" and we're moving into years rather than weeks, then that itself is significant.

Per Jonbenet - no child murders in that community, ever. Not before her, not since.

If someone did break in, what was the motive for murdering a pregnant lady who is surely among the most vulnerable of our society?

Why kill her (and her unborn baby) yet not the toddler?

The perp "cared" about the toddler but not the unborn baby. This is inconsistent with a random attack.

:twocents:

I am not so sure Cassidy was cleaned up by anyone,at least not in her home. Someone presented a good theory that she had been removed and brought back in the am, which would tie in with the 2 car sightings by residents in the neighborhood,

 

[MyBelle]

The problem is, time does tend to tell.

For example, since the murder, has there been a repeat attack on anyone else within the vicinity?

If the answer is "no" and we're moving into years rather than weeks, then that itself is significant.

Per Jonbenet - no child murders in that community, ever. Not before her, not since.

If someone did break in, what was the motive for murdering a pregnant lady who is surely among the most vulnerable of our society?

Why kill her (and her unborn baby) yet not the toddler?

The perp "cared" about the toddler but not the unborn baby. This is inconsistent with a random attack.

:twocents:

Actually, the answer is "Yes" and the murder of another pregnant woman newspaper carrier remains unsolved. At the time of Michelle's murder, another murder of a young woman in her apartment was in the news. Defendant was her neighbor, iirc. A prominent woman was attacked and murdered while in bed and it was a stranger/intruder. Her sister was asleep in another part of the house. And into all that you throw a corrupt crime lab and nobody should be surprised by this outcome.

JMO