Side note: In January of 2013, a large number of the "older" details of CART were made open to the public and essentially declassified by publication and presentation.
This has a couple of things to do with this particular trial because the digital forensics done in 2008-2010 will be affected and the veil of "national security" will be completely gone. Additionally, I'm wondering what will be said of some of the missing items that could potentially have shown up at this point, be it at Cisco, or the inventory of the Cooper storage, etc.
Overall, trials that I watched have almost overwhelmingly brought me over to the pros. And I watch a lot of them or follow them closely via reporter. I even pop in on a few of them to get engaged personally in them. *****Edited***** I've never come out at the end of a case siding with the defense other than this one. I've played devil's advocate on a few, but this one still has me on the fence. So, while I'm not convinced he didn't do it, I'm also no where near convinced he did. And other than the questions below, the answer is simple: I've looked at it over and over and over and I just don't know what happened. And apparently, neither does anyone else.
For instance, Jason Young's first trial was an awesome spectacle to behold. The hung jury was just the tip of that iceberg. Going back though, the second trial was a defense error. If they weren't going to put him on the stand, they should have been plea-bargaining machines. That was a fatal error no matter how you look at it. He needed to do a repeat and take the beating on cross. That was his only prayer. After watching that, I'm convinced his hands were in it. I could have been convinced of a paid killing. I could have been convinced of an accomplice. I could have been convinced there was another woman involved. I could have bought about anything. But, there was never a moment where I was going to walk away going: Wow. All of these coincidences and this guy might not have done it. I still don't know how he did it. I don't understand how it all went down, but in my heart of hearts, I know he's in the right place. Well, the right legal place.
I don't bite into the Cooper trial conspiracy. I don't think there was some overwhelming resurgence of the 70s (but with technology) in that Cary neighborhood. I don't buy into the soap opera fantasies of either side at all.
But, when I make my check-list of confirmation that he did it, I find way too many question marks on how it all went down and the troublesome part goes like this in any conversation I have with my true crime family and friends:
Q: There was domestic violence, there was a messy divorce, there were affairs, there was all of this evidence. He had to have done it. How can you think he didn't do it?
A: Because the coincidences in this case are all on the prosecution side.
Q: What do you mean? It was his faked spoof call. It was his router he dumped. It was him going through her emails. He googled the location of the body dump the day before. He just didn't test the computer's cookies or realize the information wasn't deleted. How can you think it was some random killer?
A: I don't think it was a random killer. I think the killer has a relationship to all of this. I don't believe the whole picture will ever come out. Do I think he google mapped the body location? No. Not on the day before he killed her. What do I think that was? Maybe the time clock was off and he did it after. Maybe he was trying to find directions to his lunch location and it was the center of the zip code. Maybe that was a coincidence. But you know what wasn't a coincidence? Not giving that information and the methods to verify it to the defense. Not lying to the judge about hocus pocus and pleading it will reveal the world of CART to kiddy pornographers everywhere if we let this guy defend himself. Completely erasing a blackberry. Being unable to locate a router that supposedly vanished or was never recorded as returned and being allowed to let a jury think it was dropped in a pond by the husband/murder suspect when you had a minimum of four cops tailing him at all times. Preserving the town because it's "just one guy". Paying zero attention to your own prosecutorial and investigative mistakes because you don't have any way to account for them.
Q: But they were getting divorced.
A: So was half of America. And being a snoopy, ***hole, cheating, philandering husband does not automatically mean you took a piece of wire and wrapped it around your wife's neck and snuffed her life out. In fact, it seems a little awfully planned for someone who supposedly did all of this technical mumbo jumbo that isn't proven and cleaned up everything but couldn't tell you the color of his wife's dress. For a smart guy, he really is a dummy.
Q: He had to have done it.
A: And by the looks of the notes and theories that were presented by the detectives working the case, that is one possibility. I don't believe it was a vanful of gypsy mexican hula dancers jogging either seen through some lady's crystal ball iphone app. However, I think that the trail started with the husband and ended with the husband when they took things that may or may not be evidence and cloaked them, cajoled them and re-cut them and jammed them down the poor judge and jury's collective throat.
Q: This wasn't about theatrics. This was about putting away a murderer.
A: Fine. Then re-try it and remove all of the crazy. Take away the defense's ability to say it was a random killer. Take away the ability to lie about the contents of a computer. Get me a google expert. Show me he made that search. All in all, the retrial should take about eight hours to present everything relevant to this case. Unless you want to reopen the investigation entirely and take a look at what is actually evidence versus coincidence and conjecture.
Q: But, we can't do that now. It's technology. Too much time has passed.
A: Then offer him a plea or let him walk. Because I don't want to be that guy in twenty years when someone points out that my google map search turns up as having been where someone I knew died and not have any precedent or case law to go by when the NSA swears it would hurt the FBI and the CIA if they tell them how they know it.
)
