Jason Young to get new trial #2

[sunshine05]

JY's defense better figure out the story on his Hush Puppy Orbital shoes.

JY claims those shoes were given away to Goodwill by Michelle.

One of JY's attorneys claimed the shoes were in his closet and were worn by "the killer" to try and make it look like JY.

Which is it? Shoes there? Shoes not there? His own attorneys couldn't agree on this. One claimed one thing during closing and the other claimed the opposite.

To me it's obvious. He was seen in the video at Cracker Barrel wearing those shoes. The SBI shoe expert testified the shoes in that video had the same characteristics in terms of shape and stitching detail. Size 12 Orbital sole shoes made prints in MY's blood in the MBR where she was murdered. Therefore those Orbital sole shoes were on the killer's feet at the time MY was killed. Upon arriving back in Raleigh, where Momma Young testified nothing was taken out of JY's SUV, those shoes were not anywhere in his luggage nor in his vehicle. Nor were the clothes he was seen wearing on the Hampton Inn video as he left to "go smoke a cigar in 34 degree weather with wind gusts." Another irony I suppose.

His attorneys couldn't agree because it could have been either. No one knows where the shoes were.

What about the pair of shoes seen in a photo in the front of the Explorer, a pair of shoes that was never collected?

There were two pairs of slip-on shoes in the Explorer. I'd say it's likely one of those is what he was wearing at CB. Otherwise, he took an extra pair of slip-on shoes on a one night business trip? That doesn't seem very likely, especially not anticipating a bloody crime as strangulation was the goal. Again, we're straining to suggest that the HP shoes purchased in '05 "could have" been worn to the crime scene but no explanation for the size 10 Dollar store shoes is explained.

 

[sunshine05]

Gracie as a witness is credible in the fact that she had an encounter with a man and she was able to describe that very encounter in detail. What the guy said, how he acted, what he wore, what kind of vehicle he drove, where he parked to get gas, how many times he buzzed to get her attention, the amount of the transaction, the amount of change left over, what he said to her. She'll be a witness in the next trial as well because the judge ruled in a separate hearing (2011) that her testimony was relevant to the case.

Ultimately it's up to a jury to decide how much weight to give her testimony, if any at all. If the jury believes it was JY who cussed her out that very morning around 5:30am, he's toast. There is no innocent reason for him being in King, NC at that time except for the obvious.

ETA: I was writing my post and didn't see Minor's above.

That was all after she was prepped for testimony and they still messed up because she described him as "about her height" even with her eyes, standing behind the counter that day and balding.

She wasn't asked anything about his vehicle when investigators first visited her. Yet, all this time later, she says "Oh, yes. White Explorer" Meanwhile it's dark outside and she has 6 other customers at the counter but she's stopping and walking over to the window to look at some guy's car. Right. That's what most people would do in that situation.

 

[jova33]

His attorneys couldn't agree because it could have been either. No one knows where the shoes were.

What about the pair of shoes seen in a photo in the front of the Explorer, a pair of shoes that was never collected?

There were two pairs of slip-on shoes in the Explorer. I'd say it's likely one of those is what he was wearing at CB. Otherwise, he took an extra pair of slip-on shoes on a one night business trip? That doesn't seem very likely, especially not anticipating a bloody crime as strangulation was the goal. Again, we're straining to suggest that the HP shoes purchased in '05 "could have" been worn to the crime scene but no explanation for the size 10 Dollar store shoes is explained.

Also, people are forgetting there were three other shoes with that same exact tread.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[citygirl]

So we should convict him because the camera was tampered with? We can argue about this case until the end of time and this is why - Our society, thanks to people like Nancy Grace have people convinced that the accused must now prove their innocence and if they can't do that, we should just convict them of the crime because of things like - affairs, "who else would have motive?" , financial reasons, etc.

Every person in this country right this moment could be accused of something and the State could easily cook up motive.

Where we are divided, and always will be is that some of us still believe that the State has the burden of proof. They must provide proof of guilt in order to gain a conviction. I don't care what anyone says, the fact remains that no tangible proof was provided in this case. There was a whole lot of "could haves"

He "could have" unplugged the camera...even though someone else's prints are on it...

He "could have" stopped in King for gas...even though there is no receipt of video or witness providing an accurate description.

He "could have" driven to Raleigh and back....even though his gas mileage is perfectly consistent with his business trip alone.

He "could have" drugged CY...even though someone else's DNA is on the medicine bottle.

He "could have" had his Explorer seen in the driveway at 3:30...even though two other witnesses saw a light colored SUV there later and one person reported seeing two other people

He "could have" murdered MY ...even though there are two sets of footprints at the scene and no explanation for that

He "could have" cleaned up CY...even though she would have had to remain clean and away from the body for 10-11 hours but her doll and blanket were there

He "could have" entered the home and murdered her and left the dog there... even though there isn't one single bloody paw print in the house.

He "could have" brutally murdered MY ... even though there wasn't a scratch on him.

I want evidence of all of these things otherwise there will always be a risk that an innocent person is suffering in prison for a crime he didn't commit. I don't want a killer loose but we have got to be sure. The State failed to meet the burden of proof as required. We will never agree because many do now believe that the accused must prove innocence. That is not the way it's supposed to work.

I don't care about any of the above. I listened to his testimony. Not one word of truth came out of the man's mouth. Imo, he lied over and over again. No respect for his wife. No remorse. Every word was spoken to save his hide.

 

[JusticeFever]

Other than a few small discrepancies that one may have after 5 years, I found JY to be truthful. He did not have to testify, and it was a huge gamble.

 

[SStarr33]

I don't care about any of the above. I listened to his testimony. Not one word of truth came out of the man's mouth. Imo, he lied over and over again. No respect for his wife. No remorse. Every word was spoken to save his hide.

Wow, that is scary.

 

[sunshine05]

I don't care about any of the above. I listened to his testimony. Not one word of truth came out of the man's mouth. Imo, he lied over and over again. No respect for his wife. No remorse. Every word was spoken to save his hide.

"Imo" is the key here. It is your opinion that he lied, your gut feeling and therefore we should vote guilty. Forget that there's no evidence to convict him.

Imagine if you were arrested for robbing a convenient store and you told police "I was never there." and they said "We have a witness who said you were." Then you testified about what you did that night and the jurors said "I felt she was lying up there so I voted guilty." Now you're serving I don't know...say 10 years. And this is based on a witness who described you incorrectly, no video proof that you were ever there. No other witnesses placed you there. None of that matters because people believed you were lying. Imagine.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Where is the person Gracie described as being in the store, and why did the state try so hard to find him? To this day, almost 8 years later, he can't be found. Maybe they should open a missing person's case.

Since your not new to this case you should remember this person passed away.

 

[Landonsmom02]

His attorneys couldn't agree because it could have been either. No one knows where the shoes were.

What about the pair of shoes seen in a photo in the front of the Explorer, a pair of shoes that was never collected?

There were two pairs of slip-on shoes in the Explorer. I'd say it's likely one of those is what he was wearing at CB. Otherwise, he took an extra pair of slip-on shoes on a one night business trip? That doesn't seem very likely, especially not anticipating a bloody crime as strangulation was the goal. Again, we're straining to suggest that the HP shoes purchased in '05 "could have" been worn to the crime scene but no explanation for the size 10 Dollar store shoes is explained.

Couldn't agree to it? He testified under oath Michelle gave those away. [modsnip]

 

[SStarr33]

"Imo" is the key here. It is your opinion that he lied, your gut feeling and therefore we should vote guilty. Forget that there's no evidence to convict him.

Imagine if you were arrested for robbing a convenient store and you told police "I was never there." and they said "We have a witness who said you were." Then you testified about what you did that night and the jurors said "I felt she was lying up there so I voted guilty." Now you're serving I don't know...say 10 years. And this is based on a witness who described you incorrectly, no video proof that you were ever there. No other witnesses placed you there. None of that matters because people believed you were lying. Imagine.

Thank you for expressing this much better than I did. I was speechless because I was so shocked at the comment.

 

[JusticeFever]

Since your not new to this case you should remember this person passed away.

No, they didn't pass away.....unless you have a link to this?
Because it never happenened. No such person was ever found. No such person ever gave a statement that they witnessed anything any remotely close to what Gracie said. Never. Ever. Ever.

 

[MyBelle]

"Imo" is the key here. It is your opinion that he lied, your gut feeling and therefore we should vote guilty. Forget that there's no evidence to convict him.

Imagine if you were arrested for robbing a convenient store and you told police "I was never there." and they said "We have a witness who said you were." Then you testified about what you did that night and the jurors said "I felt she was lying up there so I voted guilty." Now you're serving I don't know...say 10 years. And this is based on a witness who described you incorrectly, no video proof that you were ever there. No other witnesses placed you there. None of that matters because people believed you were lying. Imagine.

I think the majority of the third jury will demand a much higher bar be met by the prosecution.

The idea that random pieces of nothing such as a camera with no JY finger prints or the recollection of a brain-injured station attendant can morph into having evidentiary value is sorta insulting to the average person's intelligence.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

No, they didn't pass away.....unless you have a link to this?
Because it never happenened. No such person was ever found. No such person ever gave a statement that they witnessed anything any remotely close to what Gracie said. Never. Ever. Ever.

is it possible the witness was a figment of damaged memory in a person who testified she had a damaged memory? I think so.

 

[JusticeFever]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/

This is Gracie's testimony from Trial 1. Around the 46:00 mark, she says there was one other customer in the store when Jason came in.The defense asked her if she tried to help the state identify who that was.
However, if you look at all the other transactions,
5:19 am
5:26 am
5:27 Jason
5:28 am
5:31 am
One was one minute before Jason and one was one minute after Jason, but they saw and heard nothing. For transactions like that to happen one minute apart, one would think there had to be some kind of line in the store, or the pumps were ON...

 

[JusticeFever]

is it possible the witness was a figment of damaged memory in a person who testified she had a damaged memory? I think so.

No idea, I always thought she was just confused or trying to be helpful There are instances where she answers Ms, Holt and says Yes Sir,
Tomorrow I will post more testimony about this "witness" and the lengths that LE went to try and track him down.

 

[JusticeFever]

Another article on Gracie's ID of JY: May 20, 2011

http://abc11.com/archive/8142246/

"They showed me a picture and said "Is this the guy I said yes, it was".

But when asked by the lead prosecutor if (she) could describe the man, she froze and went silent.
After a long pause, Dahms said " I can't remember exactly".

Also, she said she met with investigators and prosecutors recently and they told her.."its very important...
my information..."

 

[jova33]

Another article:

http://abc11.com/archive/8142246/

"They showed me a picture and said "Is this the guy I said yes, it was".

But when asked by the lead prosecutor if (she) sic could describe the man, she froze and went silent.
After a long pause, Dahms said " I can't remember exactly".

I'm really surprised she was even put on the stand. The only witness who says they saw JY outside of the hotel that morning and she can't even describe the guy.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[SStarr33]

I think the majority of the third jury will demand a much higher bar be met by the prosecution.

The idea that random pieces of nothing such as a camera with no JY finger prints or the recollection of a brain-injured station attendant can morph into having evidentiary value is sorta insulting to the average person's intelligence.

JMO

I saw a couple of interviews with jurors and the intelligence level definitely seemed below normal. I could not believe what I was hearing.

 

[Madeleine74]

If one is going by the media reports and heavily edited interviews, then one is not getting a full picture. I wouldn't make any pronouncements about the intelligence or lack thereof based only on what the media is choosing to edit and show.

 

[citygirl]

"Imo" is the key here. It is your opinion that he lied, your gut feeling and therefore we should vote guilty. Forget that there's no evidence to convict him.

Imagine if you were arrested for robbing a convenient store and you told police "I was never there." and they said "We have a witness who said you were." Then you testified about what you did that night and the jurors said "I felt she was lying up there so I voted guilty." Now you're serving I don't know...say 10 years. And this is based on a witness who described you incorrectly, no video proof that you were ever there. No other witnesses placed you there. None of that matters because people believed you were lying. Imagine.

I'm not telling you to vote guilty nor do I question the evidence presented at trial.