State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-14-12

[fredwomble]

Yet, the last Jury had a problem with the foreperson saying much room for reasonable doubt.

Here are 4 more key things that come into play though!!

Jason filling out with gas in Raleigh before he left= VIDEO
Jason stopping at Cracker Barrel= VIDEO
Jason at the hotel= VIDEO
Jason getting gas in King, NC= oops, NO VIDEO

I've never felt strongly that the clerk was right or wrong in her ID and that aspect of the case only made it harder in the first case. Most people could grasp that you might not find WHERE he gassed up and wouldn't hold it against the prosecution. Ergo, hours of testimony that probably won't make or break the case. That said, it remains one more coincidence that Ms. Gracie told law enforcement the man from their photograph drove a white SUV. Only difference is that this one may actually be a coincidence but no doubt in my mind that Gracie is absolutely certain of her identification of Jason Young. Meaning she could be the one person on earth who Jason Young looks at and thinks to himself, "that lady KNOWS I did it."

 

[Just the Fax]

Is there anything about Jason's character, words and actions that do not indicate he's a murderer? Everything from when he reads the paper to what he says on the phone, where he parks his car, what he has in his suitcase, what he uses to prop a door, Elmer's prints are on a pipe, a rock on the sidewalk ... all spells murder?

No, where did you get that idea?

 

[Madeleine74]

Ahhh Lori. First degree pup smuggling! Now that's a crime I can well understand. Pups are more addictive than cocaine, IMHO.

 

[Albert]

That is an interesting packing strategy for an overnight (maybe 2 if he had decided to bunk with Mom for an extra night?) business trip.

I don't think that Hampton has an indoor pool - and I am sure any outdoor would be closed for the season - so trunks? lots of socks - weird (unless you need a couple of throwaways walking around the murder scene)

The condoms don't suprise me - he likely just kept them in his bag / suitcase so he was at the ready - it's not like he would have them in his bureau at home - so just leave them in there because you never know when opportunity knocks.

Still no dark shirt....


Cracker Barrel breath at a Hampton isn't exactly the kind of dude that might cause me to stray.... And yet - he seemed to have no shortage of partners. Ewww.....

indoor pool.... yes

http://hamptoninn.hilton.com/en/hp/hotels/services.jhtml?ctyhocn=HLVVAHX

 

[otto]

No, where did you get that idea?

Right here. He parked his car and checked in. His hotel room was on the opposite side of where he parked ... he must be guilty, right?

 

[gritguy]

Is there anything about Jason's character, words and actions that do not indicate he's a murderer? Everything from when he reads the paper to what he says on the phone, where he parks his car, what he has in his suitcase, what he uses to prop a door, Elmer's prints are on a pipe, a rock on the sidewalk ... all spells murder?

I certainly see plenty. His wishing LF was not around as much as she wanted to be. Cheating. Arguing with his wife. Those alone to me make him look bad to some but I think they would be present in a reasonable number of relationships if such were exposed to sudden and intense scrutiny.

I see your point though. It's possible to have a mindset that causes one to see almost any behavior as consistent with or indicating guilt. It's possible too to have a mindset that causes one to see almost any behavior as explainable or not adding weight to a guilty case.

Everybody's got a viewpoint, and it's tough to see the other side sometimes. I find it equally hard, to the other end of the point you're making, to see it being made out that JY didn't do anything that a reasonable person would find consistent with guilt of this particular crime, yet that viewpoint exists too.

 

[gritguy]

Ahhh Lori. First degree pup smuggling! Now that's a crime I can well understand. Pups are more addictive than cocaine, IMHO.

I've never tried to snort one but I'll take your word for it.

I bet she decided to flea the scene before she was collared.


:blushing:lease:

 

[otto]

I certainly see plenty. His wishing LF was not around as much as she wanted to be. Cheating. Arguing with his wife. Those alone to me make him look bad to some but I think they would be present in a reasonable number of relationships if such were exposed to sudden and intense scrutiny.

I see your point though. It's possible to have a mindset that causes one to see almost any behavior as consistent with or indicating guilt. It's possible too to have a mindset that causes one to see almost any behavior as explainable or not adding weight to a guilty case.

Everybody's got a viewpoint, and it's tough to see the other side sometimes. I find it equally hard, to the other end of the point you're making, to see it being made out that JY didn't do anything that a reasonable person would find consistent with guilt of this particular crime, yet that viewpoint exists too.

I'm not saying there isn't evidence, but I do wonder what's up when reading the paper at midnight or parking his car before checking in is considered suspicious. Everything about Jason seems to be filtered through the guilty screen, so everything he does is presented as sinister. Jason has some serious problems because of his adultery, the long loud arguments he and his wife had in public and so on, but I suppose I'd like to see a little more separation between what actually implies guilt and taking everything he did and interpretting it as guilt. We've heard from the psychologist that Michelle was verbally abused, yet the fact that Jason and Michelle had long, loud arguments is not viewed as perhaps two people participating in verbal abuse ... instead, we interpret it as Michelle was in an abusive relationship.

 

[Madeleine74]

When you look at each item of evidence in isolation from every other item then of course it would be easy to dismiss each. For instance, I've seen people say, "well I've propped open a door at a hotel before to go smoke...does that make me a murderer?"

To which you must then ask, "Did you also disable the video camera covering that exit twice? Did your spouse also get murdered that night? Did items of clothes you were seen wearing as you propped the door to have that smoke go missing by the next morning? No?"

It's when you start to put each occurrence next to the others within the short timespan of 24 hrs that a picture emerges.

However, if one is intent on looking at each piece of evidence in complete isolation to any other and then come up with an innocent explanation of it, that's just pure stubbornness.

 

[Just the Fax]

What I find about his luggage (he said he spent time packing) is when he left home at 7:15PM, his stated intention was to drive 1/2 way, crash, go to a meeting Friday AM and drive straight home. His intention to go to Brevard was said to be made at 9:10PM when he spoke with mom <mod snip>.

He was wearing a creme sweater and jeans when he left.
He had his business attire as well.

Why did he also pack a dark pullover?
No underwear? Huh?
Where was your change of underwear, Jay?

 

[Grammy Jean]

That's a good point; it could have been in there from long ago.

I do agree with some others posting that it doesn't matter much. The general behavior on that topic is shown clearly elsewhere and conceded by the defense.

However, he was probably wishing today that he hadn't packed that way.

Wasn't his most recent trip to Orlando? Perhaps condoms were still in his suitcase from his time with MM on his anniversary.

 

[gritguy]

Wasn't his most recent trip to Orlando? Perhaps condoms were still in his suitcase from his time with MM on his anniversary.

Certainly could be or as Albert said. It's unlikely, I'd think, they were packed in relation to the final trip. He either was intending a very short trip, or a murder, and neither called for that item.

 

[gritguy]

When you look at each item of evidence in isolation from every other item then of course it would be easy to dismiss each. For instance, I've seen people say, "well I've propped open a door at a hotel before to go smoke...does that make me a murderer?"

To which you must then ask, "Did you also disable the video camera covering that exit twice? Did your spouse also get murdered that night? Did items of clothes you were seen wearing as you propped the door to have that smoke go missing by the next morning? No?"

It's when you start to put each occurrence next to the others within the short timespan of 24 hrs that a picture emerges.

However, if one is intent on looking at each piece of evidence in complete isolation to any other and then come up with an innocent explanation of it, that's just pure stubbornness.

It is the correct approach. The duty for the jury - not of course us - to take the evidence in its totality and decide what they discard or credit. They are not charged to consider each fact in a vacuum. And to Otto's point, they should not invent a sinister motive for an act where one is not shown to exist. The whole picture is key, but of course that isn't known til both parties present the whole shebang and finish their closing arguments.

It's frustrating waiting for that as we argue bits and pieces.

Oh and for the record, he did it.

 

[Madeleine74]

The condoms don't definitively point to anything wrt this particular trip.

The missing HP Orbital shoes and dark pullover however....

ETA: I agree GritGuy. He soooo did it. 100% guilty IMO.

 

[otto]

When you look at each item of evidence in isolation from every other item then of course it would be easy to dismiss each. For instance, I've seen people say, "well I've propped open a door at a hotel before to go smoke...does that make me a murderer?"

To which you must then ask, "Did you also disable the video camera covering that exit twice? Did your spouse also get murdered that night? Did items of clothes you were seen wearing as you propped the door to have that smoke go missing by the next morning? No?"

It's when you start to put each occurrence next to the others within the short timespan of 24 hrs that a picture emerges.

However, if one is intent on looking at each piece of evidence in complete isolation to any other and then come up with an innocent explanation of it, that's just pure stubbornness.

Each item in isolation versus interpretting everything as implying guilt? I'd prefer to look at where Jason parked the car, in isolation, and decide if it really has anything to do with his murdered wife ... same with how he identifies himself on the answering machine, when he reads the paper, whether the gas attendant is a valid witness, et cetera.

 

[gritguy]

The condoms don't definitively point to anything wrt this particular trip.

The missing HP Orbital shoes and dark pullover however....

Agree. That is part of the picture. He's got a reason at least for the shoes (he gave them away so someone else had the same size and kind of shoe he had bought but discarded and wore them when his wife was murdered).

I look at the total picture and say they have the guy. His generally unprovable explanations and alibi that has a gaping hole in it only because of intentional acts to sabotage mechanisms that would have given objective indications of the veracity of the alibi don't sway me.

I repeat that his alibi is not air tight because somebody defeated four separate systems that would have shown his return to his room at the time he said. That much effort tells me it was for a reason. The reason you try to destroy or erase objective evidence is because it won't support the story you intend to tell.

 

[gritguy]

From the NC Pattern Jury Instruction:

&#8220;There are two types of evidence from which you may find the truth as to the facts of a case -- direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of one who asserts actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eye-witness; circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain or group of facts and circumstances indicating the guilt or innocence of a defendant. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. Nor is a greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence. You should weigh all the evidence in the case. After weighing all the evidence, if you are not convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.&#8221;

It's proper to look at the group of facts and not pick them apart in isolation. However, if an individual fact does not add to the picture then it is proper to conclude it has no weight. For me, looking at the chain of facts I believe have been shown or will be, I see the indication of guilt as fully convincing. And that includes discarding a lot of evidence given as really having no direct bearing on the central issue.

 

[Madeleine74]

Yep, FOUR systems that could have absolutely proved he was where he said he was at the time he said he was there. Yet each one purposely disabled. One of the systems was disabled on purpose, twice.

 

[Just the Fax]

Cell pings again (sorry).
Some say he turned the cell off and back on the next am.
Probably did, but there is no proof.
As we learned in Brad Cooper, pings are only recorded and stored when calls are placed or received.
(don't confuse real time ping tracking in missing person cases)

 

[Albert]

So this is my second trial that I am following, the other trial was BC. I actually work with some folks that were college and post college friends of JY although this really means nothing. I personally don't know him. I do believe he is guilty but I have not been able to follow the trial as closely as I would like. I do have some timeline and other questions if you all don't mind:

1. When did the hotel staff remove the rock from the doorway? It must have been after JY returned in the morning. Apparently the hotel does not have a sufficient security system to detect that the door is not completely closed? Hopefully they have upgraded their security/monitoring systems.

2. It has been reported that the camera was adjusted twice during that night, correct? Does this camera face the doorway? I wonder how JY adjusted the camera the second time without being detected? Have they determined the time of day that the camera was adjusted in both cases? I would think this is quite possible to get the exact timestamps from the video. Again, the security/monitoring capabilities of this hotel seem to be quite lacking.

3. It has been mentioned that MY's body had to be moved in order for the closet door to be opened. Is there a substantial amount of blood found inside that closet? JY must have been standing in her pool of blood while he moved the body in order to open the door. I am not clear on how much, if any, blood was found in the closet.

4. How is the witness at 4 Brothers (gas station) deemed more credible than the witness that saw NC running? I remember all the talk about the credibility of eye witnesses during the BC trial yet it seems that the most knowledgeable people posting on this forum seem to find her very credible. Therefore I am just curious.

5. Tire tracks observed on lawn at edge of driveway. Do these tracks match JY tires? Are these tire tracks significant to this case?

While I understand the coincidences linking JY to this murder I also think about how lucky the following did not occur:

1. Hotel staff did not find the rock in the door prior to JY returning.
2. No neighbors were awake in the early am to see JY returning home.
3. No video cameras at 4 Brothers.
4. No traces of hotel room fibers found in residence.
5. No evidence of blood found in the vehicle.
6. No witness at the hotel admitting that they saw JY return to the hotel early in the morning.

Thanks in advance.

Albert