I don't think that there was any formal jury tampering, but there can be little doubt that there was a bit of social hysteria surrounding the case. Community members, whose sole agenda it was to see Jason arrested, regularly contacted, and communicated with, news reporters about evidence in the case. Some community members, with no connection to the case, had regular contact with detectives. Media and community members hunted Jason down when he was socializing with friends, they interfered with his studies in the nursing program, they posted damaging remarks on his work website, they went to his parents home, and they harassed him until he was arrested. Several people in the community and the media had formed an opinion about his guilt before the crime scene was released, so it would be no surprise to learn that any jury could not be entirely impartial.
Jason Young to get new trial
- Thread starter JusticeFever
- Start date
New Posts
-
NE NE - Sunny Sramek, 18, Trenton, last seen with male, 20 April 2019 *endangered*
- Latest: Unalienable Rights
- Status
I don't think that there was any formal jury tampering, but there can be little doubt that there was a bit of social hysteria surrounding the case. Community members, whose sole agenda it was to see Jason arrested, regularly contacted, and communicated with, news reporters about evidence in the case. Some community members, with no connection to the case, had regular contact with detectives. Media and community members hunted Jason down when he was socializing with friends, they interfered with his studies in the nursing program, they posted damaging remarks on his work website, they went to his parents home, and they harassed him until he was arrested. Several people in the community and the media had formed an opinion about his guilt before the crime scene was released, so it would be no surprise to learn that any jury could not be entirely impartial.
I don't think that the child's feet were washed. I believe that early reports stated that the child was wearing socks when she went to bed. Police should have her socks in evidence, but I'm pretty sure that they didn't collect them. Jason's sister (the one that collected Michelle's teeth from the master bedroom) might have photos of the socks at the house after the scene was released by police, as I do recall that she helped clean up the house after the murder. If prosecutors want to discuss the child's feet, they have a responsibility to tell the whole story (including the bloody socks) and to produce the socks and explain why the child's feet should be bloody even though the child was wearing socks. Did police simply assume that there would be no evidence of the perp on the socks and so they didn't bother collecting blood evidence at a crime scene?
I'd like to ask investigators why they left bloody socks and bloody sheets at a murder scene. How could they possibly know that there was no evidence on those sheets! In that same line of reasoning, why did police tell the medical examiner that the victim was not sexually assaulted? Tunnel vision interfered with this murder investigation from the moment that the murder was reported.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
Impartiality goes both ways. Just as there are people who think someone is guilty, there are also people who think it's impossible that a defendant is guilty no matter what the evidence and those folks would need to see a video of the person committing the murder before they would believe it.
Ultimately it is up to the attorneys of both sides to select a jury and they have a lot of latitude during voir dire to make sure they do get an impartial jury. They get to toss people for cause and even a few for no cause at all. In the end, the jury is the one that both sides selected, the ones that were subjected to questioning by both sides, and both defense and state thought the person could and would listen to the evidence as presented during trial and not "pre judge" the case.
Unless people are outright lying just to sit on a jury (and I am not that cynical to think they are) I think the jury in JY's case was fine and the defense didn't have a problem with them.
Ultimately it is up to the attorneys of both sides to select a jury and they have a lot of latitude during voir dire to make sure they do get an impartial jury. They get to toss people for cause and even a few for no cause at all. In the end, the jury is the one that both sides selected, the ones that were subjected to questioning by both sides, and both defense and state thought the person could and would listen to the evidence as presented during trial and not "pre judge" the case.
Unless people are outright lying just to sit on a jury (and I am not that cynical to think they are) I think the jury in JY's case was fine and the defense didn't have a problem with them.
Nymeria
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Messages
- 3,584
- Reaction score
- 16
*BBM*
But that is why I am saying a drunk and a second person makes little sense also...
I really am trying to remain as unbiased as I can while I actually watch the first 2 trials, but some of the JY defense here is almost making me sway into guilt. It is almost TOO fervent.
But...I shall trudge on with the viewing.
I have a feeling at the rate this schedule is going I could have time to go back and actually read all the threads also. But I want to watch the trials first, before I get tainted by opinions.
(LOL, maybe I should stop reading this thread also
).Every high profile case seems to draw out some loonies. If some did have regular contact with detectives it could be raised as an issue at trial as it was in the Casey Anthony trial with a detective but the Judge was satisfied he didn't discuss details of the case.
iirc, there were allegations of juror misconduct in the Young case that the Judge did have investigated. I wonder now what exactly was found and if the Judge was too quick to dismiss it as unfounded.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
There was no juror misconduct. There was a looneytunes from High Point who thought JY was being railroaded and decided to make a facebook persona to stir the sh** on the WRAL facebook page, claiming juror misconduct. That person got outed during the SBI investigation and almost ended up charged with contempt.
All of this and more is very well documented. No need to make up facts to advance a position.
All of this and more is very well documented. No need to make up facts to advance a position.
*BBM*
But that is why I am saying a drunk and a second person makes little sense also...
I really am trying to remain as unbiased as I can while I actually watch the first 2 trials, but some of the JY defense here is almost making me sway into guilt. It is almost TOO fervent.
But...I shall trudge on with the viewing.
I have a feeling at the rate this schedule is going I could have time to go back and actually read all the threads also. But I want to watch the trials first, before I get tainted by opinions.
(LOL, maybe I should stop reading this thread also
I was just throwing out a theory. The crime scene really did not look like a meticulously timed out and planned murder. It looked like someone, blinded by rage, beat MY until they were too fatigued to raise their weapon again. You don't plan a murder on your ability to go rage out.
The prosecution's theory is JY did all this James Bond, 007 maneuvers around the hotel, disabling one security camera, and left his hotel room door cracked open. Then he drove back home. There he manifested his rage that he once exhibited against his ex-fiance when he pulled the engagement ring off her finger, and channeled all that rage to beat MY to death with some blunt object. He then changed his shoes because he was wearing a pair two sizes smaller to conceal the fact that he was there. Then he took CY, who had blood on her, to an undisclosed location in his car, but managed to not leave any trace amounts of blood in his vehicle. There, he washed her and her clothes, but forgot to pack a diaper. Took CY back to the house, and tucked her in his bed. After that, he drove back to the hotel, but he needed gas. Still in a state of rage, his hair thinned and he lost a foot of height, and then hassled the gas station attendant. He made it back to the hotel after 6:30 am, and then got ready for his sales meeting. Drove on an empty tank of gas for about 100 miles before he filled up again.
Sent from your mom's smartphone
Landonsmom02
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction score
- 9
I don't think his plan was to go there and beat her to death. As noted in the autopsy report "Blunt force injury to the neck consistent with manual strangulation.
Scratches on the left side of the neck consistent with fingernail marks.
Hemorrhage of the strap muscles of the left side of the neck."
He was going to strangle her but she fought back. He then as you have said, in a fit of rage beat her until he couldn't raise his arm anymore. He wore gloves and cleaned himself off outside, which, imo is why the water hose was still running when LEO arrived. As I have stated earlier, I don't think CY was taken anywhere. Unfourtnately we will never know, unless she remembers and talks. This new trial will be hard on everyone. I for one hope she has no recollection of that horrible night and can be spared as a witness.
Gloves won't leave fingernail marks. If he washed off outside, blood would've been in the grass. Unless it was raining?
And if she fought back, and JY was the attacker, how did he make it out of there without a scratch on him?
Sent from your mom's smartphone
Nymeria
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Messages
- 3,584
- Reaction score
- 16
Depends on the glove.
Surgical or rubber gloves for sure could leave fingernail marks.
Thick leather ones, not so much.
How soon after the crime was JY stripped and checked?
I know he was, I do not recall the time period though. TIA!
ETA- Also, I am sure this has been covered but it is easier for me to just ask- Did MY have any skin under her fingernails?
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
His non-testimonial order was several days after the murder. He was seen wearing a long pullover type top in the Hampton Inn video as he was walking towards the door to go outside to read his just-acquired, day old USA Today newspaper, to see the 'current' sports scores in the dark and smoke a cigar (as he claimed), in 32 degrees with strong wind gusts, as it so happened, according to stipulated facts on weather conditions that night in Hillsville. Nevermind his computer activity showed he was on a sports site and he was watching sports in his room before leaving the H.I. (all in testimony by a witness he was on the phone with).
Long sleeves + gloves + the element of surprise + a weapon of some kind (whether that was a club, a bat, a tool, or something else) gave him the absolute upper hand. The intent was strangulation, which did not succeed (but did leave some evidence on MY's body that the perp tried that first). The COD was blunt force trauma, with 30+ blows to the face and head. MY's teeth flew out of her mouth from the force of impact. You see, MY was supposed to die easily and quickly and she didn't just follow the script on that. That raised rage, which the killer extracted mercilessly on her head. There were so many blows and the blows were so forceful that some of the blows ran into each other. The amount of injury and deepness of the wounds indicated someone very strong, full of rage, who wanted MY absolutely dead.
CY was given an adult strength medicine that JY pedaled as part of his pharma sales job, through a dropper. Said dropper and said medicine was found in CY's room on a high shelf. The dropper had CY's DNA on it, which makes sense as it was put in her mouth by the killer. The intent there was to put CY to sleep. Whether the meds did or did not is unknown. The medicine was not in CY's room before; it was a med JY had access to.
Long sleeves + gloves + the element of surprise + a weapon of some kind (whether that was a club, a bat, a tool, or something else) gave him the absolute upper hand. The intent was strangulation, which did not succeed (but did leave some evidence on MY's body that the perp tried that first). The COD was blunt force trauma, with 30+ blows to the face and head. MY's teeth flew out of her mouth from the force of impact. You see, MY was supposed to die easily and quickly and she didn't just follow the script on that. That raised rage, which the killer extracted mercilessly on her head. There were so many blows and the blows were so forceful that some of the blows ran into each other. The amount of injury and deepness of the wounds indicated someone very strong, full of rage, who wanted MY absolutely dead.
CY was given an adult strength medicine that JY pedaled as part of his pharma sales job, through a dropper. Said dropper and said medicine was found in CY's room on a high shelf. The dropper had CY's DNA on it, which makes sense as it was put in her mouth by the killer. The intent there was to put CY to sleep. Whether the meds did or did not is unknown. The medicine was not in CY's room before; it was a med JY had access to.
Nymeria
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Messages
- 3,584
- Reaction score
- 16
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
It's all in the trial.
Nymeria
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2013
- Messages
- 3,584
- Reaction score
- 16
I know, but I never read the threads and am only in DAY 1 of the 1st trial (so far). So new to me, and a pretty huge bit of info.
Link to the DNA being found on the medicine? JY testified that a side effect of the medicine was hyperactivity in children, so it would've been a bad drug to give to a child.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
The bloody foot prints in the bathroom weren't sock wearing feet. Also her pajamas were "shockingly clean" yet chemically tested positive for blood. So, either the pajamas were washed, or she got invisible blood on them.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
The two different, bloody shoe prints in the bedroom were obvious and collected as evidence. Yet how is it that there was not a trail of those shoe prints beyond the bedroom? If the killer was so careless about prints in one room, why weren't there shoe prints outside of that room? That one has me puzzled.
It wouldn't be a drug to give a child if the goal was to make her sleepy. Quite a few drugs such as Benedryl can have the opposite effect in children that it has in adults. Or, if it makes them sleepy, the effect is short lasting and the kid wakes up hyper and thirsty. lol
JY wore the smaller shoes to try and conceal the fact that it was him. Then he changed his shoes because they were not comfortable, but he forgot that he just murdered someone right there and stepped in the blood.
Or, the other theory is that he wore one pair of shoes on his hands and the other on his feet and walked around the crime scene on all fours to create the appearance someone else was there.
/sarcasm
Sent from your mom's smartphone
JusticeFever
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 94
Whether you think JY is innocent or guilty, it doesn't change where we are right now. His conviction has been overturned, just like Brad Cooper's, So, we get to do it all over again.
Hearings on witness/ evidence admissability, possible change of venue, new defense attorneys, whole new ball game. Probably won't happen until next year,(2015) with Cooper being up first, unless some kind of deals are offered, No way of knowing until we get the next ruling in Young's case and no way of predicting the results. The cases, are respectively, 8 and 6 years old, anything can and probably will happen.
Hearings on witness/ evidence admissability, possible change of venue, new defense attorneys, whole new ball game. Probably won't happen until next year,(2015) with Cooper being up first, unless some kind of deals are offered, No way of knowing until we get the next ruling in Young's case and no way of predicting the results. The cases, are respectively, 8 and 6 years old, anything can and probably will happen.
- Status