Jason Young to get new trial #2

[SStarr33]

I still can't believe she didn't roll her over and attempt CPR. Even the added info "there's blood everywhere...footprints". That isn't helpful to the victim. It's a very weird call.

Agree. That was a strange call. IMO, she cleaned up the child.

 

[SStarr33]

That's pretty standard IMO. You can't count on intelligent and rational minds being on your jury. Every time I hear jurors speak after a verdict, I think the same thing

It is so scary.

 

[sunshine05]

You could be right. I thought he stated his wife gave them to Good Will. He was a suspect from day one. Why would he be surprised they would be searching 6 years later? Because he assumed after all these years they would slack off? Maybe forget? Maybe not care?
I don't recall 2 pairs of slip-on shoes in the Explorer. Is there a link for that? Don't go searching if it is not at your finger tips. Just don't remember.

Right, but he had no idea shoes were part of the case. It wasn't until they got a search warrant for them 26 or so months later that they became important. I think people don't realize how it would feel to be in that situation, part of an investigation and what people think "Oh, just give them the shoes, what's he hiding.?" --- remember that he's not talking to police and has no idea that shoes are deemed "missing", not until years later. I think few people would really be able to say "Oh, yes. I remember where I put those shoes." He never lived in that house again, never entered that house again. Everything he owned was left behind until family cleaned it out before it sold.

Think about a pair of shoes that you purchased two years ago and try to remember where in your house you put them or if you don't wear them anymore if you gave them to charity or pitched them or what. It's difficult and not something that anyone would ever believe would possibly cost them their freedom.

I don't have a link handy but when cross examining one of the investigators, Collins pointed out a photo of a pair of brown slip-on shoes in the front floorboard...the investigator said the pair that he removed was in the back near the car seat. I think it shows that they didn't pull every single item out of the vehicle and document it.

 

[minor4th]

yep, not the kind of chatter one expects from a child who may have witnessed her mother's murder. Of course, having a 9-1-1 caller try to question said child while an operator is trying to get her to focus on providing help to the victim is also a bit unusual.



JMO

I don't know that there is any way to define what kind of chatter is expected from a 2 year old who witnesses her mother's murder. She was chattering about the boo boos everywhere also, so I don't know why she wouldn't similarly talk of her daddy if she saw him

 

[sunshine05]

I don't know that there is any way to define what kind of chatter is expected from a 2 year old who witnesses her mother's murder. She was chattering about the boo boos everywhere also, so I don't know why she wouldn't similarly talk of her daddy if she saw him

I think the point here is that she wasn't crying, wasn't scared, hungry, thirsty, wet or soiled but was in a house with no upstairs heat alone with a dead body for 10 or so hours and was found clean, dry, calm, no blood, no wet diaper, no missing diaper laying on the floor....something isn't right. She was chattering as one would expect a child who had been tended to all that time. IMO

 

[SStarr33]

The overturned conviction did not have anything to do with shoes in the Explorer or jeans. The state is free to introduce that evidence in the next trial. The jury will decide what weight to give it.

Why do you say that?

 

[citygirl]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10698472/

I know this was brought up time and again during the trials but I am posting the link to the 911 call and if you start listening at about the 7:40 mark when MF asks CY sweetie do you know what happened CY says, "Daddy do it" If you watch it a few times the DT squirms in their seats I am sure they hear it too. I know the reasonable doubt people will not here this but felt it was worth posting the link... look at attorneys and listen to CY

I am more struck by the completely cool, non-reaction from JY. Nothing.

 

[citygirl]

It is so scary.

What are your feelings about the jurors in the first trial? Were they as sub-par?

 

[SStarr33]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10698472/

I know this was brought up time and again during the trials but I am posting the link to the 911 call and if you start listening at about the 7:40 mark when MF asks CY sweetie do you know what happened CY says, "Daddy do it" If you watch it a few times the DT squirms in their seats I am sure they hear it too. I know the reasonable doubt people will not here this but felt it was worth posting the link... look at attorneys and listen to CY

Was there a sound expert at the trial that testified the child said "Daddy do it"?

 

[sunshine05]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
The overturned conviction did not have anything to do with shoes in the Explorer or jeans. The state is free to introduce that evidence in the next trial. The jury will decide what weight to give it.
Why do you say that?

Maddy is right. The conviction was overturned due to the inadmissibility of the civil suits. The "missing" clothing allegation will return!

 

[SStarr33]

What are your feelings about the jurors in the first trial? Were they as sub-par?

I've not seen any interviews, so I have no opinion at this time.

 

[sunshine05]

I am more struck by the completely cool, non-reaction from JY. Nothing.

He was visibly upset several times throughout the trial. I wouldn't describe him as cool and non-reactive. I would imagine one would almost have to zone out just to survive a trial like this. If he had been crying a lot and carrying on I'll bet everyone would say "Look at the acting, how fake.". The prosecutor said that about Michael Morton during his trial and we now know that he was NOT acting and was innocent all along.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't know that there is any way to define what kind of chatter is expected from a 2 year old who witnesses her mother's murder. She was chattering about the boo boos everywhere also, so I don't know why she wouldn't similarly talk of her daddy if she saw him

If a toddler sees her father kill her mother you really think she'll be happily chattering about boo-boos? We'll have to see what the psychologist who saw her that night has to say about it. The expected demeanor of a toddler who has been alone with an unresponsive mother for many hours I think would cause an incredible amount of stress and frustration.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I think the point here is that she wasn't crying, wasn't scared, hungry, thirsty, wet or soiled but was in a house with no upstairs heat alone with a dead body for 10 or so hours and was found clean, dry, calm, no blood, no wet diaper, no missing diaper laying on the floor....something isn't right. She was chattering as one would expect a child who had been tended to all that time. IMO

My point. Thanks. I think next trial the psychologist at the house will be able to shed more light on it.

JMO

 

[minor4th]

If a toddler sees her father kill her mother you really think she'll be happily chattering about boo-boos? We'll have to see what the psychologist who saw her that night has to say about it. The expected demeanor of a toddler who has been alone with an unresponsive mother for many hours I think would cause an incredible amount of stress and frustration.



JMO

Yeah I think that's well within the realm of possibilities - just like chattering away about her dead mothers boo boos.

 

[minor4th]

I think the point here is that she wasn't crying, wasn't scared, hungry, thirsty, wet or soiled but was in a house with no upstairs heat alone with a dead body for 10 or so hours and was found clean, dry, calm, no blood, no wet diaper, no missing diaper laying on the floor....something isn't right. She was chattering as one would expect a child who had been tended to all that time. IMO

I don't think it reveals anything either for or against Jason and I doubt we'll hear any more about it beyond what MF has testified to

 

[sunshine05]

I don't think it reveals anything either for or against Jason and I doubt we'll hear any more about it beyond what MF has testified to

The fact remains that there are things that can't be explained if we are to assume that JY was responsible for this crime. No one here has been able to offer an explanation.

--- According to MF, the dog was in the house and was "freaking out". He was loose, not behind a child gate or anything. Animals gravitate toward blood, yet there is not one bloody paw print to be found in that house. As well, when MF exited the home that afternoon, none of the responders report seeing the dog, so what did she do with him? She didn't put him in the fenced back yard.

--- The child was unable to dress herself, yet she was found dressed and clean. How does one explain that?

---- Her pajamas had trace amount of blood on them - though none was visible --- it is as if they were washed. Certainly JY didn't have time to do laundry that night.

--- Looking closely at the bloody footprints in the bathroom - they look staged as if her feet were dipped and she was held and footprints placed with multiple trips back and forth as they all appear to be dark in color. There are no prints from the bedroom to the bathroom.

 

[JusticeFever]

For those who are new or asking how and why we are heading into Trial 3 , this is an article about Trial 1. The jury was dead-locked at 8-4 Not Guilty.....

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9800989/

Young Jury foreman.. "There was no doubt in my mind that there was reasonable doubt in this case"

 

[Pseudonymph]

I do hear the child say Daddy, but at that age all men might be called "daddies" just like all women are sometimes "mommies." She could possibly be saying that a daddy, generic, was there.

 

[JusticeFever]

The fact remains that there are things that can't be explained if we are to assume that JY was responsible for this crime. No one here has been able to offer an explanation.

--- According to MF, the dog was in the house and was "freaking out". He was loose, not behind a child gate or anything. Animals gravitate toward blood, yet there is not one bloody paw print to be found in that house. As well, when MF exited the home that afternoon, none of the responders report seeing the dog, so what did she do with him? She didn't put him in the fenced back yard.

--- The child was unable to dress herself, yet she was found dressed and clean. How does one explain that?

---- Her pajamas had trace amount of blood on them - though none was visible --- it is as if they were washed. Certainly JY didn't have time to do laundry that night.

--- Looking closely at the bloody footprints in the bathroom - they look staged as if her feet were dipped and she was held and footprints placed with multiple trips back and forth as they all appear to be dark in color. There are no prints from the bedroom to the bathroom.

The footprints in the bathroom have raised a lot of questions, that's for sure, as well as Mr. G.