It's a mystery because it's statistically unlikely ... all that "luck" when it comes to not being seen, "coincidence" when the evidence simply isn't there. So we have to believe that Jason was extremely lucky, coincidentally, when he approached the camera twice and it did not record his movement ... even though he didn't know that the camera was on a 14 second delay. We have to also believe that coincidentally he left no prints or DNA. The only evidence that points to him - connecting him to the camera - is that his wife was murdered that night. That's the coincidence that the prosecution bases on all sorts of luck.
State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-15-2012
- Thread starter nursebeeme
- Start date
- Status
It's a mystery because it's statistically unlikely ... all that "luck" when it comes to not being seen, "coincidence" when the evidence simply isn't there. So we have to believe that Jason was extremely lucky, coincidentally, when he approached the camera twice and it did not record his movement ... even though he didn't know that the camera was on a 14 second delay. We have to also believe that coincidentally he left no prints or DNA. The only evidence that points to him - connecting him to the camera - is that his wife was murdered that night. That's the coincidence that the prosecution bases on all sorts of luck.
3doglady
Certified Coffeeaholic
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 0
What evidence supports the medication being in CY's room before the murder?
Either that or the prosecution's manufactured evidence (drugging) will fall apart.
Bottle Cap
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 0
I'd be too skeered to discuss this with GritGuy - he's waaaaay smarter than me. I do have a hefty amount of ire going for me tho, in place of smarts!
Court testimony from the night clerk was that there were 10-12 cameras and I believe he also stated that there was a 14 second delay ... it turns out there were 10 cameras and I'm assuming that the delay was at least 1 second per camera.
More along the lines of "what if Jason gave his daughter a peanut butter sandwich at 4 am" or "what if Jason drugged his daughter at 4 am". There's no evidence that either occurred.
None. There is no connection between the medicine and the murder.
One of my dogs accidentally scratched my hand Saturday morning. It is still very evident today. Jason should have had some recognizable injuries on his body if he hit someone with his hands a few times ... a least bruised knuckles from hitting someone in the head in a fight to the death, or struggling while trying and failing to strangle someone. Shouldn't there be something more than a stubbed toe?
I would say that is something to really give thought to but for the fact that there doesn't appear to be trace evidence from anywhere, not just none from the hotel, but nothing is showing up in the evidence from the scene that points to any body being in that home the night of the murder besides what should ordinarily be in this home.
That in itself is very strange. We know someone was in there. That is indisputable. Where is the foreign evidence? There appear to be no fibers, no blood, no fingerprints, no DNA that shouldn't be there, no oddities at the house regarding ransacked or moved around items (save for the 2 drawers missing from the jewelry box - nothing is missing that we know of).
The whole thing is just bizarre.
However, absence of physical evidence does not equate to absence of guilt. So let's move on to other evidence in the case. The circumstantial evidence.
But not for the oddities with the doors being fooled around with at the hotel and the security camera, I'd be hard pressed to be leaning towards this being done by JY. Those activities make me very suspicious and then when added to his other behavior which I will not go into again here as we've all seen it discussed and dissected with many having differing views what, if anything, it all means.
I believer there to be way too many coincidences and I think one fails to accurately analyze all the circumstantial evidence if one incident or event is separated out and look at it individually. To me, it is the totality of it all that is overwhelmingly pointing in JY's direction as of right now. One piece of circumstantial evidence looked at in isolation can easily have a plausible or somewhat believable explanation. To me, though, to do that with every single piece and try to explain it all away piece by piece is not viewing it in its entirety together as a puzzle which is how I believe a circumstantial case should be analyzed.
Suffice it to say that I'm very well on my way to believing that this was definitely done by JY.
IMO, there is a strong trend with some people to say since JY left no evidence he was there then did JY do this and thereby exonerating him. The thing is, evidence of JY being there IS there. It is his house. What is strikingly missing is evidence that anyone else WAS there. Whomever did this to Michelle, did it without leaving any evidence at all that anyone other than Michelle, Cassidy or JY were ever in that bedroom or upstairs area at all. So where is it? IMO, it's not there because there was no one else there that didn't belong there.
How did he keep the bottom floor so clean? If he was able to keep the evidence of the murder all up on the 2nd floor of the house, then for me, it's not a great leap to say he was then also able to keep it out of his vehicle. Who knows but he did it or if you are inclined to think that it wasn't him, okay - but then whomever else did it also was very careful and kept the first floor clean as well. I've seen people say how could anyone do that? Well, that's a very good question and one that we can all speculate til the cows come home but the fact remains that it was done.
IMO
I'm now wondering how much he pulled from thin air.
That would make one testimony from thin air, one from strange human anatomy ... implications about work related materials that were in the home.
There's been the question posted about whether or not card key entry to guest rooms is tracked somehow. The answer is yes and Elmer Goad testified to how this is done. He described a piece of electronic equipment that is connected directly to the specific room's card key entry and a read out is then obtained. He took LE to JY's room when they were on site, did a reading in front of LE for that particular room. It showed an entry into the room with the key issued to JY within minutes of him checking into the hotel. The next time the card reader showed any activity was the next morning (I believe it was sometime around or shortly after 11am) and it was with the maid service card key.
Elmer testified to this during this trial. I saw the testimony myself.
His testimony can be watched here: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10704801/#/vid10704801 (he testified during the 3rd day of the trial and this clip posted is the segment in which he testified)
IMO
Elmer testified to this during this trial. I saw the testimony myself.
His testimony can be watched here: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10704801/#/vid10704801 (he testified during the 3rd day of the trial and this clip posted is the segment in which he testified)
IMO
tarheel8600
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- -3
Concerning my opinion of JY's guilt or innocence, I cannot get past these things:
-The state of the marriage
-JY's utter disregard for his wife's feelings or needs
-JY's affairs
-The missing shirt (and for those who say there is no missing shirt, let's see the DT produce it at trial - this is probably the most crucial piece of CE LE has against JY)
-The HP Orbital shoe prints at the crime scene - a pair of shoes JY owned
-The security camera at the HI tampered with twice in one night at the exact times JY would have needed them tampered with if he committed the murder
-JY's assertion that it was more simple to prop open hotel doors rather than take his key card with him to re-enter the building and re-enter his room twice
-Cassidy left unharmed
-Mr. G left unharmed and inside
-JY's desperation to get MF over to the house
-JY's refusal to accept or return his MIL's calls
-JY's refusal to help LE find his wife and unborn son's killer(s) even with his lawyer present
-JY's refusal to do a simple walk through of the house to identify what was missing
-The lack of stolen items
-JY offered no reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killer(s)
-No show at the WDS to defend himself against the worst accusation imaginable
-Voluntarily giving up his daughter because it was in his best interest not to be deposed
-JY living it up after the death of his wife - he was never a grieving widower
How anyone can look at these occurrences and say that JY is innocent is beyond me. Common sense; it's just common sense.
-The state of the marriage
-JY's utter disregard for his wife's feelings or needs
-JY's affairs
-The missing shirt (and for those who say there is no missing shirt, let's see the DT produce it at trial - this is probably the most crucial piece of CE LE has against JY)
-The HP Orbital shoe prints at the crime scene - a pair of shoes JY owned
-The security camera at the HI tampered with twice in one night at the exact times JY would have needed them tampered with if he committed the murder
-JY's assertion that it was more simple to prop open hotel doors rather than take his key card with him to re-enter the building and re-enter his room twice
-Cassidy left unharmed
-Mr. G left unharmed and inside
-JY's desperation to get MF over to the house
-JY's refusal to accept or return his MIL's calls
-JY's refusal to help LE find his wife and unborn son's killer(s) even with his lawyer present
-JY's refusal to do a simple walk through of the house to identify what was missing
-The lack of stolen items
-JY offered no reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killer(s)
-No show at the WDS to defend himself against the worst accusation imaginable
-Voluntarily giving up his daughter because it was in his best interest not to be deposed
-JY living it up after the death of his wife - he was never a grieving widower
How anyone can look at these occurrences and say that JY is innocent is beyond me. Common sense; it's just common sense.
Great post, Tarheel. I don't have a major disagreement with the elements you've chosen to focus on, because those are the same elements I've been trying to wrap my head around.
Rather than write a long tome, let me just note were we agree and disagree:
In summary, I don't think he is innocent, but the state must prove guilt, and the case is weak in spots. I hope they do a better job of it this time
Rather than write a long tome, let me just note were we agree and disagree:
In summary, I don't think he is innocent, but the state must prove guilt, and the case is weak in spots. I hope they do a better job of it this time
If Jason was away through the night and he somehow rigged the door to remain open but appear closed, why didn't the night audit clerk notice when he slid bills under the door and hung newspapers on the doors? The guy was at Jason's hotel door twice and both times, another coincidence, the night audit guy in charge of ensuring that hotel room doors were secure didn't notice that the door was open? It was his job ... after all ... to be confident that all the hotel guests were securely in their rooms.
Aside from the repair man, Elmer, testifying to how the hotel room keycards were logged, who else knew how it worked?
<snipped>
I think the marriage facts can be excluded. Jason has some points against him, regardless of whether the dog and child were left unharmed.
That was a bit of work to separate your remarks from the other post ... now to read it
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
- Status