Guilty of first degree murder/verdict watch #2

[Nixie]

I'm not convinced that criminals view the termination of a fetus as the death of a child, but that's just my opinion. I don't know anything about criminals other than what I read in the paper, but I'm of the opinion that they really don't much care about other people's rights and probably don't really hold it against each other if they decide to murder a wife.

I think if you research Charles Manson you will see differently. He had a lot of problems in prison because Sharon Tate was pregnant when those murders occurred. There are many other cases but his is the most famous I can think of right now.

http://duvessahollingswood.blogspot.com/2008/01/aryan-brotherhood.html

I serously doubt he will be able to ppull of having enough resources to pay off others for protection. He will be shunned like most are.

 

[gracielee]

It is the end of the story ... except for the active investigations into jury misconduct regarding the actions of two jurors.

What I heard was *possible*, *alleged*, misconduct. Are the jurors not allowed the same innocence until proven guilty as the defendant? All we are aware of right now is 'rumors', No?

 

[Madeleine74]

I think if you research Charles Manson you will see differently. He had a lot of problems in prison because Sharon Tate was pregnant when those murders occurred. There are many other cases but his is the most famous I can think of right now.

http://duvessahollingswood.blogspot.com/2008/01/aryan-brotherhood.html

Manson had issues more because of his infamy. He's still a celeb among certain subgroups and he still gets hundreds of letters and TV specials and articles written about him 40+ yrs after the murders.

Taking down someone famous earns prison cred and power. Infamous inmates are targets more so because of that than their actual crimes. Jeffrey Dahmer was targeted because he was famous, not because he killed and ate his victims.

I'm not saying some prison inmates aren't incensed or repulsed, but I don't think their society works the way we've been told it does in the media. I think that's a bit of a fantasy based on some stories that have been told. It's more about gangs and who's at war with which group or subgroup, who owes who what, race, who's on a hit list, who snitches, etc.

Jason Young is famous right now. That will eventually die down and he'll just be another random killer among killers. It's the publicity that they get that makes them targets. Believe it or not, there is jealousy among some killers when it comes to getting press. No one in prison cares about Michelle Young or an unborn fetus. WE care. Michelle's family cares. Other killers? Nahhh.

 

[Nixie]

What I heard was *possible*, *alleged*, misconduct. Are the jurors not allowed the same innocence until proven guilty as the defendant? All we are aware of right now is 'rumors', No?

And hopefully it will all be over soon so everyone can move on. I cannot imagine the stress this is putting on MY's family and it is all over a facebook post that showed nothing but someone maybe knowing something. It has nothing to do with the outcome of the verdict and it doesn't show that even if true it swayed anyones vote.

 

[otto]

I think if you research Charles Manson you will see differently. He had a lot of problems in prison because Sharon Tate was pregnant when those murders occurred. There are many other cases but his is the most famous I can think of right now.

http://duvessahollingswood.blogspot.com/2008/01/aryan-brotherhood.html

I serously doubt he will be able to ppull of having enough resources to pay off others for protection. He will be shunned like most are.

I would view Manson in a category far different than men that murder wives. He is a mad man that killed for the thrill.

I agree that people convicted of crimes against children are at risk in prison, but I don't think that extends to unborn children. My understanding is that it's more about the types of crimes against child - specifically pedophilia. According to the linked article, the reason that pedophiles are at risk in prison is because many criminals were victims of pedophiles.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90004

The chart on this link has murderers (non-rapists) pretty much at the top of the prison heirarchy

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/05/michael_devlin_stabbed_prison_hierarchies.php

 

[gracielee]

I'm not convinced that criminals view the termination of a fetus as the death of a child, but that's just my opinion. I don't know anything about criminals other than what I read in the paper, but I'm of the opinion that they really don't much care about other people's rights and probably don't really hold it against each other if they decide to murder a wife.

Probably you are right, and criminals don't care about the rights of others. But JLY knew that *fetus* had a name, Rylan. He knew that baby had all his body parts and was living and growing inside it's mother. In fact it was testifed to at trial that JLY 'touched Michelle's belly' in her casket. The presence of 'baby Rylan' was accepted by *all* involved, including the young family. And IIRC, wasn't it testified to that Michelle's hands were upon her belly when she was turned over at the crime scene? I'd imagine, MOO, that her last thoughts were of baby Rylan, inside her. A mothers instinct to protect their young. Extremely sad and tragic IMO. But then, as you said, criminals don't *care*.

 

[BrownRice]

There was a very recent case (can't remember which one though, sorry) that involved a child being sexually abused and murdered (maybe the little girl in Indiana in the mobile home park infested with molesters?) and on that thread (here at WS) there was a poster who said they were employed by the prison system somewhere in the US. This poster said it was a fallacy that prisoners are singled out or bullied (for lack of a better word) because they are child molesters or child killers. The prisoners are all the bottom of the barrel when it comes to society - they don't have the same disgust or empathy when it comes to crimes like we do.

So, I doubt JY will be picked on because of his murders. Maybe because of how he looks, but I don't think anybody there will care about MY or RY.

 

[BrownRice]

Regarding his picture, it's a pretty good one. He looks like a normal guy and not too ugly like usual. Big difference from BC's first prison shot - looked like hell (as I would too I'm sure).

 

[octobermoon]

Otto,
Charles Manson didn't kill anyone, he is a crazed madman for sure who manipulated others to do his work. But never soiled his own hands. (sorry for the term )

 

[Madeleine74]

Otto,
Charles Manson didn't kill anyone, he is a crazed madman for sure who manipulated others to do his work. But never soiled his own hands. (sorry for the term )

Actually, he did, but it wasn't the Tate/LaBianca killings, though he orchestrated and conspired on those and personally tied up the LaBianca couple. He did some other killings along the way (Shorty Shea for one). Anyway that's another topic for another thread.

 

[octobermoon]

Actually, he did, but it wasn't the Tate/LaBianca killings, though he orchestrated and conspired on those and personally tied up the LaBianca couple. He did some other killings along the way (Shorty Shea for one). Anyway that's another topic for another thread.

Well, I didn't know that. Thank you

Otto,
I am sorry. I was wrong off to google.

 

[Madeleine74]

I did a lot of reading about Manson, the family, the various crimes they did, etc, etc. years ago. There must be 30+ books published. Helter Skelter is the best known because the author was one of the prosecutors, but there are many other books too. You can go on a deep, deep dive on that killer and stay immersed so long you'll need to decompress slowly or suffer the bends. So be prepared... Your wetsuit, O2 tank, flippers, and dive computer await.

 

[MyBelle]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It sounds like those on the jury made assumptions even though there was no evidence to support the assumptions. One person remarked that two people were probably involved, but there was no evidence of a second person in connection with Jason.

"Young, investigators said, planned an alibi: a business trip to Virginia with a stay in a hotel three hours away. But, how could he have made that drive, beat his wife to death, cleaned the blood off himself and his toddler daughter, and made it back to Virginia by 6 a.m. without leaving a trace of evidence?

"He would have had to have, and probably had, help," said Baldwin. "Probably did have help. That's what we had surmised. We were leaning strongly to that possibility."

He probably would have had help? Probably? Is that good enough? Shouldn't there be evidence that he had help ... a phone call, email, payment, something?

"Not so much that I didn't necessarily believe he had committed the murder, but I just didn't know if the evidence was heavy enough to make that conviction beyond a reasonable doubt."

Didn't know if the evidence was heavy enough to make a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Didn't know? How did she arrive at a guilty verdict if she didn't know if the evidence supported a guilty verdict?

"A pivotal point of discussion was evidence that little Cassidy Young had tracked her mother's blood around the house, but had no blood on her when her aunt found her at the murder scene."

What trial was she following? Where was it said that the child had no blood on her when found? That was said all over the internet before the trial, but during the trial we learned that she had blood on her feet and on her pyjamas. Why did she believe a rumor from prior to the trial rather than the evidence presented at trial?

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8571108

BBM. Hey, Otto, evidently some jurors thought it okay to just guess and be done with it. I think future jurors should be required to take an intelligence test.

sur·mise (sr-mz)
v. sur·mised, sur·mis·ing, sur·mis·es
v.tr.
To infer (something) without sufficiently conclusive evidence.v.intr.
To make a guess or conjecture.
n.
An idea or opinion based on insufficiently conclusive evidence; a conjecture.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/surmise

 

[otto]

BBM. Hey, Otto, evidently some jurors thought it okay to just guess and be done with it. I think future jurors should be required to take an intelligence test.

sur·mise (sr-mz)
v. sur·mised, sur·mis·ing, sur·mis·es
v.tr.
To infer (something) without sufficiently conclusive evidence.v.intr.
To make a guess or conjecture.
n.
An idea or opinion based on insufficiently conclusive evidence; a conjecture.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/surmise

The biggest problem I have with the whole process is the prosecution's use of the illogical cliche that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That is not a legal argument, yet it seems to be what jurors used in their deliberations.

In fact, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. For example, if there is an absence of evidence that a murder occurred, then there is evidence that there was no murder. It is illogical to claim that there is an absence of evidence that a murder occurred, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Evidence is in fact required to draw conclusions, but the prosecution would have the jurors believe that although there is nothing to prove that something happened, it might have happened and so a guilty verdict is an option ... just because it might be true.

 

[jrb0124]

The biggest problem I have with the whole process is the prosecution's use of the illogical cliche that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That is not a legal argument, yet it seems to be what jurors used in their deliberations.

In fact, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

While you are correct if its interpreted as "absence of any evidence is not evidence of absence",

I think in fairness, the thought here (as I understood at least) is actually: "absence of certain/expected evidence is not evidence of absence".

There was: the shoe print, 30 blows (overkill), and missing ring (co-relates to other altercation), all of which were "present" evidence.

ETA: I also don't think that analogies/metaphors/cliches used by attorney(s) in opening or closing statements have to meet a threshold of logic (beyond being supported in some way, stretch or not, by the evidence and testimony)...i.e. "if it doesn't fit you must acquit"

 

[dja230]

IMO evidence is there that Jason Young killed Michelle and Ryan, use common sense and logic, all the facts, answer all the questions would be impossible because you can not get in the killers mind, does that mean he is innocent? Absolutely not.

 

[jrb0124]

The jury was told they could consider that he acted in concert with other(s) in their deliberations. They did nothing wrong in doing so.

IMO

Though I do think JY was at least involved if not directly responsible for murdering MY, I have an slight issue with the concept as specifically applied to this case.

The jury instructions for acting in concert stipulated that there must be a belief that JY was present at the scene during the murder, whether or not he was the actual murderer.

I think there is enough proof that he was at the crime scene that early morning (possible to commit the act himself, possibly to survey after the fact) and involved with the murder, but not enough evidence that JY was the actual murderer or at the scene during the murder.

Hope that makes sense?

 

[otto]

While you are correct if its interpreted as "absence of any evidence is not evidence of absence",

I think in fairness, the thought here (as I understood at least) is actually: "absence of certain/expected evidence is not evidence of absence".

There was: the shoe print, 30 blows (overkill), and missing ring (co-relates to other altercation), all of which were "present" evidence.

There most certainly was evidence of murder. The problem was that there wasn't evidence at the scene that Jason committed the murder. That is where prosecutor's wanted the jury to assume that even though there was no evidence that Jason murdered his wife at the scene, that absense of evidence did not mean that he wasn't there at the time of the murder. In my opinion, that should never be presented as a legal argument. There was absence of evidence that the child was cleaned, but that should not mean that she was cleaned. There was evidence that the child had blood on her feet and on her pyjamas, but a jury member spoke out and said that the evidence of blood on the child was not there. In this case, the evidence was interpretted as an absence of evidence.

What we have is evidence that was considered absent, and absence of evidence that was considered evidence. That, to me, is completely illogical.

 

[dja230]

If not for JY, Michelle and Ryan would still be alive, even if there were many people in the room with JY, it is still murder because of JY.

 

[jrb0124]

He also said the other parties had to be present at the crime. The juror said they concluded somebody else took care of Cassidy afterwards. That conclusion does not follow the instruction set by the Judge.

JMO

However, someone else taking care of CY after the fact does not mean the jurors must consider that person as acting in concert.

The Jury could conclude that JY committed the murder then called for clean-up help. That is reasonable, and not acting in concert.

I still feel uneasy about the fact that if you postulate 2 or more people were at the crime scene before MF got to the house, how can you determine based on the evidence which one or if both/several were actually present during the murder? or who removed and cleaned up CY (if that happened). Could be that JY showed up just to handle CY.