Guilty of first degree murder/verdict watch #2

[Lucky89]

Around the 9:54 mark Judge Stephens explains 5th amendment rights

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10805888/#/vid10805888

 

[janesdean]

Investigators managed to request that Jason appear for pictures on Nov 7. If the clothes that he was wearing when he returned to Raleigh were important to the investigation, they should have been requested at the same time.

When JY got to his moms house Nov 3, he reportedly did not remove ANY thing from his Explorer, and his mom testified that he was wearing his dress slacks, shirt and tie (with jacket over his shoulder) when he arrived. As soon as he got to Merediths' that night, his Explorer was seized and impounded. Those clothes should have been in his luggage in his Explorer, or was his mom lying about what happened when he got to her house ?

 

[janesdean]

It's highly unlikely the next jury will ignore the judge's instructions.

JMO

What next jury? And, nowhere has it been proven that this jury ignored the judge's instructions, btw.

 

[janesdean]

snipped and bolded by me

Jason was not required to come up with missing clothing. Your opinion that it would have guaranteed an acquittal is just that. Jurors were supposed to follow instructions and forcing him to prove his innocence wasn't listed.
JMO

If Jason was innocent the clothes he wore in the video Nov 2 would have been in his possession. They were not, and have never been seen again, which proves he got rid of them and that points directly to guilt. Whatever you're thinking/posting about this jury is bs, they have done nothing wrong. If the SBI investigation does produce any wrongdoing, that would be the time to discuss them and the work they did on this case. Until then, Jason Young is a convicted murderer and will serve a LWOP sentence in NC prison.
And the Prosecutors and the jury did a fine job in this case.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Jason was not required to come up with missing clothing. Your opinion that it would have guaranteed an acquittal is just that. Jurors were supposed to follow instructions and forcing him to prove his innocence wasn't listed.

The jurors had a duty to follow the Judge's instructions. If they failed to do so in any way, they'll pay the consequences. I do agree that a fourth-grader should understand the concept.

JMO

That Jason Young didn't produce the clothes he was wearing when he left the HI, of his own volition, when the consequences to him were LWOP, is proof that he does not have them and never did have them...they were dumped.

No one can reasonably be expected to believe an individual would be obstinate enough to allow himself to be convicted because a whole separate set of clothes wasn't requested of him by LE. As far as concepts go, that one is just silly. As far as excuses go, its beyond flimsy.

 

[OneLove]

I just don't understand the "blame the jury" instead of blaming Jason for his own actions. ??

In working with at risk youthful first time offenders, we were taught that there was a way to predict with a high rate of accuracy which offenders would go on to have productive lawful lives and which ones would reoffend and therefore need to be caged for the protection of socIety at large. Basically, the ones that just will not accept responsibility for their actions and persist in pointing blame elsewhere are the ones that will end up in prison as adults.

Coincidentally, PARENTS who do the same thing (blame others for the misconduct of their kids) are creating monsters. It's very sad. I have to wonder what Jason's rearing was like.

 

[dja230]

Sometimes people get stuck on certain things and will not look at the totality of things(evidence), maybe they are not capable, coincidences happen, but come on, they are few and far between, when posting yesterday a lot of the things I said were, apparently, not read thoroughly, but picked up a couple of words and off they were, again, read entire post before picking words, TOTALITY!

 

[Talina]

I don't get all the posts bashing the jury for not following instructions. Bashing them for using their brains and coming to conclusions of what the evidence showed to them, which witnesses they felt were credible versus not credible, what evidence held greater weight than other evidence, etc., etc., etc. That is what the jury is charged to do. Now they get bashed for doing just that instead of acting like robots.

If they don't deliberate and evaluate the evidence and try to make sense of the circumstantial evidence or throw it all out - they are accused of not fulfilling their oath they took when being sworn in.

Now that this jury did do that, took time to deliberate, discuss the different evidence, requested to review 12 items of evidence, after having spent several hours reviewing it all prior to the DT giving their CIC, they are criticized for using their heads and drawing conclusions, assuming and concluding for themselves what could or couldn't have taken place given certain circumstances. After doing so with their fellow jurors, they reach a verdict.

I just don't get it. What more were they supposed to do that they did not do?

The CA jury was roundly criticized for not doing what this jury did appeared to do. Now this jury is being criticized by some for doing exactly what many had wished the CA jury had done. I guess it is impossible to please everyone and perhaps there will always be criticism towards a jury if the verdict is not what some felt it should be. If that is what is really going on with some of the critics, then that is a very unfair and unjust criticism just because the verdict is disagreeable.

IMO

 

[MyBelle]

That Jason Young didn't produce the clothes he was wearing when he left the HI, of his own volition, when the consequences to him were LWOP, is proof that he does not have them and never did have them...they were dumped.

No one can reasonably be expected to believe an individual would be obstinate enough to allow himself to be convicted because a whole separate set of clothes wasn't requested of him by LE. As far as concepts go, that one is just silly. As far as excuses go, its beyond flimsy.

<modsnip>. That's not the way it works no matter how often you repeat it.

In reality, our justice system says Jason doesn't have to prove his innocence. The fact that the prosecution's entire case was focused on his silence and that he hasn't provided the items they claim are missing could be construed as prosecutorial misconduct.


JMO

 

[BritsKate]

Regardless of statutes in place or what the constitution guarantees if I had my choice between 'proving my innocence' and a lifetime in prison I know exactly what my decision would entail.

 

[dja230]

JY's silence spoke Volumes! While silence is golden, not in this case, pleaaaaaaaase.

 

[Wolfpack]

 

[sureLocke]

Evidence has been defined as: The available facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

JY may legally not needed to have produce his clothing from the night in question but it sure would have helped his position of being found not guilty of murder. It is a fact that he could not produce the clothing. It is a fact that Gracie encountered JY the morning of 11/3/2006.
If I am being charged with a crime I would do everything I could to support my position, JY did none of that. All the information we have, which includes his behavior, tells us that JY was covering up the fact that he was guilty of murder. The state did not want that to be the case until it was obvious to them that he was, and that did not take very long.

 

[Wolfpack]

Evidence has been defined as: The available facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

JY may legally not needed to have produce his clothing from the night in question but it sure would have helped his position of being found not guilty of murder. It is a fact that he could not produce the clothing. It is a fact that Gracie encountered JY the morning of 11/3/2006.
If I am being charged with a crime I would do everything I could to support my position, JY did none of that. All the information we have, which includes his behavior, tells us that JY was covering up the fact that he was guilty of murder. The state did not want that to be the case until it was obvious to them that he was, and that did not take very long.

The bolded part is absolutely not a fact.

 

[Talina]

Evidence has been defined as: The available facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

JY may legally not needed to have produce his clothing from the night in question but it sure would have helped his position of being found not guilty of murder. It is a fact that he could not produce the clothing. It is a fact that Gracie encountered JY the morning of 11/3/2006.
If I am being charged with a crime I would do everything I could to support my position, JY did none of that. All the information we have, which includes his behavior, tells us that JY was covering up the fact that he was guilty of murder. The state did not want that to be the case until it was obvious to them that he was, and that did not take very long.

BBM

While I do tend to lean towards believing Gracie did see JY that morning, I don't believe it is a fact that she did. It is a fact she claims she saw him but nothing was presented to support her claim that makes her claim factual.

IMO

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Evidence has been defined as: The available facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

JY may legally not needed to have produce his clothing from the night in question but it sure would have helped his position of being found not guilty of murder. It is a fact that he could not produce the clothing. It is a fact that Gracie encountered JY the morning of 11/3/2006.
If I am being charged with a crime I would do everything I could to support my position, JY did none of that. All the information we have, which includes his behavior, tells us that JY was covering up the fact that he was guilty of murder. The state did not want that to be the case until it was obvious to them that he was, and that did not take very long.

BBM
<modsnip> It is not a fact... I don't believe she saw JY....

 

[gracielee]

BBM

While I do tend to lean towards believing Gracie did see JY that morning, I don't believe it is a fact that she did. It is a fact she claims she saw him but nothing was presented to support her claim that makes her claim factual.

IMO

As the judge states to the jury, 'you can believe some of what a witness testifies to, or all of what a witness testifies to, it's up to you the jury to decide the credibiity of witnesses and their testimony.' If I were a juror on the JLY trial, I'd firmly believe gracie's testimony *because* it fit exactly into the timeline. He was where he would have been, by the time the camera at HI was once again, tilted up to the ceiling. Gracie testified to a specific customor, his specific purchase of gas with cash, between 5:25 - 5:30 a.m. And low and behold, that's right about where JLY would have been at that time on his trip back from Raleigh. She had gas receipts to prove the time she stated, without any prior knowledge as to the timeline circumstance. When taken in total, her testimony puts our boy right where he should have been, to be able to tilt that camera back up to the ceiling at HI approx an hour later.

 

[Madeleine74]

And the irony? Eye witness to seeing someone is considered "direct evidence." It's not direct evidence of the murder itself in this case, no.

So people say they cannot convict based on circumstantial evidence. Yet Eye witness is direct.

I love irony.

Circumstantial evidence is usually much stronger, even though it requires the drawing of inferences and connecting dots.

 

[Talina]

As the judge states to the jury, 'you can believe some of what a witness testifies to, or all of what a witness testifies to, it's up to you the jury to decide the credibiity of witnesses and their testimony.' If I were a juror on the JLY trial, I'd firmly believe gracie's testimony *because* it fit exactly into the timeline. He was where he would have been, by the time the camera at HI was once again, tilted up to the ceiling. Gracie testified to a specific customor, his specific purchase of gas with cash, between 5:25 - 5:30 a.m. And low and behold, that's right about where JLY would have been at that time on his trip back from Raleigh. She had gas receipts to prove the time she stated, without any prior knowledge as to the timeline circumstance. When taken in total, her testimony puts our boy right where he should have been, to be able to tilt that camera back up to the ceiling at HI approx an hour later.

Oh, I agree and like I said, I tend to believe Gracie's testimony.

I just don't believe it is a fact that she saw him because there is nothing factual (eg another witness, surveillance video, etc.) to support what she says. That's all I meant in saying it is not fact.

IMO

 

[OneLove]

<modsnip> That's not the way it works no matter how often you repeat it.

In reality, our justice system says Jason doesn't have to prove his innocence. The fact that the prosecution's entire case was focused on his silence and that he hasn't provided the items they claim are missing could be construed as prosecutorial misconduct.


JMO

<modsnip> There was quite a lot presented in this case besides Jason's "silence" and the absence of the clothing he wore during the murder.

<modsnip>

It's true that Jason's defense did not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution proved his GUILT. Too bad the defense didn't CHOOSE to help his case by countering.