Breaking News/State files Brief Today in Young Case.10/20/14

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Otto.

This case has gone on for so long, but I believe that one of the answers to the questions you asked, is that the state won the civil suit by default. Jason, nor his attorney, never showed up for the hearing and then later when he testified at his trial he explained the reasons why.
I can't even get through this last motion until I have more time! But, I do know the state is trying to say he waited to see their case before he said anything, and his appellate attorney is trying to say that he had access to all the information long before trial started.
One of the biggest problems has always been the civil and custody suits coming before an arrest, and then you have to ask yourself why so long for an arrest when the state had an eyewitness placing him somewhere he shouldn't have been.
 
JusticeFever said:
Hi Otto.

This case has gone on for so long, but I believe that one of the answers to the questions you asked, is that the state won the civil suit by default. Jason, nor his attorney, never showed up for the hearing and then later when he testified at his trial he explained the reasons why.
I can't even get through this last motion until I have more time! But, I do know the state is trying to say he waited to see their case before he said anything, and his appellate attorney is trying to say that he had access to all the information long before trial started.
One of the biggest problems has always been the civil and custody suits coming before an arrest, and then you have to ask yourself why so long for an arrest when the state had an eyewitness placing him somewhere he shouldn't have been.
Click to expand...

The glaring argument against the state's contention that Jason waited until he "knew" the state's case is that Jason was there. He knew the facts before the state ever presented a case. He knew how many times his key card was used. He took his attorney's advice and failed to speak to anyone which was his right under both state and federal constitutions. If the NC Supreme Court rejects his argument, I think it will proceed to federal review.

JMO
 
otto said:
Why so pessimistic? I read only one of the seven points, and I didn't see a valid argument on behalf of the People; I don't think it's in the People's best interests to have civil murderer declarations entered into criminal prosecutions. If the other six points are similar arguments, I think Jason will have a new trial, and he will use his position to take an Alford Plea; time served.

IF there's one flaw in the argument, such as the N.C.G.S. §1-149, it is sufficient to annul the entire response to the appeal. All of it has be sound, not only 6/7 points.
Click to expand...

I agree to a point. I don't believe Jason will ever take an Alford plea because I think he will escalate it to a federal level. The appellate court raise multiple issues, not just one issue. Too many mistakes were made by the court.

JMO
 
Thoughts of Michelle today..........I'm glad Cassidy has Meredith and Mrs. Fisher to share memories of her Mom, especially today.

Thinking of you all.........
 
tarheellvr said:
Thoughts of Michelle today..........I'm glad Cassidy has Meredith and Mrs. Fisher to share memories of her Mom, especially today.

Thinking of you all.........
Click to expand...

This isn't the anniversary of Michelle's death. Is it her birthday, her daughter's birthday, ./. another special occasion?
 
I just watched the youtube video of the Appeals hearing, and one things that stands out at the end as a strange assumption is the blond woman states that because the child was not harmed, the murder could not have been committed by a stranger. That is simply untrue. I think it's a mistake to toss untrue statements into a legal argument.
 
otto said:
I just watched the youtube video of the Appeals hearing, and one things that stands out at the end as a strange assumption is the blond woman states that because the child was not harmed, the murder could not have been committed by a stranger. That is simply untrue. I think it's a mistake to toss untrue statements into a legal argument.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you, it is troubling. The child became an orphan which is an outcome not wished upon a child.
 
I just came across another NC case where one child was left alive after the mom and two children were murdered. The father was not responsible. The trial was in 2014, so prosecutors in this case should know that the fact that a child is left alive does not say anything about the murderer.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/us/death-row-stories-hennis/
 
otto said:
I just came across another NC case where one child was left alive after the mom and two children were murdered. The father was not responsible. The trial was in 2014, so prosecutors in this case should know that the fact that a child is left alive does not say anything about the murderer.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/us/death-row-stories-hennis/
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite.
Unlike most, this was not a domestic homicide.
The 2 older children that could communicate and ID the killer were in fact killed.
Thankfully, he left the harmless 22 month old baby alone in the crib.

Goes to show a random killer would likely kill any witness....including ambulatory children that probably witnessed the murder
 
otto said:
I just came across another NC case where one child was left alive after the mom and two children were murdered. The father was not responsible. The trial was in 2014, so prosecutors in this case should know that the fact that a child is left alive does not say anything about the murderer.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/us/death-row-stories-hennis/
Click to expand...

Even to suggest it is pretty inane because CY was old enough to identify her father if she had been properly questioned by police. Jason had no control over whether police interviewed his daughter.

JMO
 
Just the Fax said:
Quite the opposite.
Unlike most, this was not a domestic homicide.
The 2 older children that could communicate and ID the killer were in fact killed.
Thankfully, he left the harmless 22 month old baby alone in the crib.

Goes to show a random killer would likely kill any witness....including ambulatory children that probably witnessed the murder
Click to expand...

The child in one case was 22 months of age, and in another case 30 months of age. In each case, the 1-2 year old child was left alive. That alone should stop prosecutors from claiming, during legal arguments in a courtroom, that: if a 1-2 year old is left alive at a murder scene, the murderer could not have been a stranger.

The fact that the Kathryn Eastburn NC case is so recent suggests that the prosecutors knew, or should have known, that they were presenting false information when they claimed that a stranger would not leave a toddler alive at a murder scene. We can accept that prosecutors simply don't know anything about the Christa Worthington case because it is a few years ago, but not the Kathryn Eastburn case.

It just not cool for prosecutors to make false statements during arguments in a courtroom as it can cast doubt on the veracity of all their statements.
 
otto said:
The child in one case was 22 months of age, and in another case 30 months of age. In each case, the 1-2 year old child was left alive. That alone should stop prosecutors from claiming, during legal arguments in a courtroom, that: if a 1-2 year old is left alive at a murder scene, the murderer could not have been a stranger.

The fact that the Kathryn Eastburn NC case is so recent suggests that the prosecutors knew, or should have known, that they were presenting false information when they claimed that a stranger would not leave a toddler alive at a murder scene. We can accept that prosecutors simply don't know anything about the Christa Worthington case because it is a few years ago, but not the Kathryn Eastburn case.

It just not cool for prosecutors to make false statements during arguments in a courtroom as it can cast doubt on the veracity of all their statements.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read up on the facts of that case.

The 22 month old baby girl was found in her room, secured in her crib.
The other 2 kids that met their untimely demise were 3 and 5.
CY had a toddler bed and was free to come and go from her room...especially if she heard her mom scream for her life.
 
The cases are so different I don't know why it's even been mentioned. Just because it happened in NC AND there was 1 toddler left alive in her crib?

One case is a sexual assault case in 1985 by a stranger, who went on to kill the 3 people who could ID him. DNA testing, which did not yet exist when this crime occurred, eventually tied the killer to the rape and murder.

The Young case is a non-sexual assault case, a case of planned domestic homicide, perpetrated by the estranged husband who then took care of his own daughter and the next day manipulated his sister-in-law to come to the house so she could 'find' the body and her toddler niece.

Apples / Oranges
 
otto said:
I just watched the youtube video of the Appeals hearing, and one things that stands out at the end as a strange assumption is the blond woman states that because the child was not harmed, the murder could not have been committed by a stranger. That is simply untrue. I think it's a mistake to toss untrue statements into a legal argument.
Click to expand...

Well, since it was a hearing don't you think that was just the blond woman's opinion? Likely there was a opposite position (view) taken by the defense.
 
If anyone is interested Dateline is running their show about the case "Silent Witness" at 8 CT tonight on NBC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 137 more.
Total: 2,822 (members: 138, guests: 2,684)

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
2,684
Total visitors
2,822
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,313
Messages
18,154,867
Members
231,705
Latest member
Mr_Psycho
Back
Top