Jason Young to get new trial #2

[SStarr33]

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

Who is Mr. G? If you can't say can you please give me a link?

 

[JusticeFever]

Who is Mr. G? If you can't say can you please give me a link?

Lol, no big mystery!! Mr. G . (Garrison) is the Young's dog.
Welcome to the case, btw. If you need any help, pretty much everything you want is @ WRAL and here at Websleuths on information threads or you can ask anyone here.

 

[tarheellvr]

With so much conversation about circumstantial evidence, I think it necessary to remember Michelle's injuries. These injuries were NOT just murder, they were overkill.....done by someone with rage and hatred in their heart for Michelle.
I, for one, believe JY spent many hours planning this slaughter of his wife and unborn son. Yes, much of the evidence is circumstantial. Yes, much of the evidence can be dissected, examined, etc, but in the end many of us can reach only one conclusion. No matter how such evidence is explained, we believe JY and JY alone murdered his wife and unborn son in the most horrendous way without one ounce of mercy.

We need to remember these injuries always!!

Blunt force Injury #1

This 1” crescent mark was on the left shoulder. Her arm appeared very bruised around this mark. It was not a laceration, but appeared as a well defined superficial mark on her skin. Very telling for possible weapon clues.

Blunt force Injury #2

This was a very clean, 1 ¼ cut on her lower left jaw. This was due to her jaw being broken and then fragmented bone protruding from “inside out”.

Blunt force Injury #3

The left side of Michelle’s head had 8 very deep and gaping wounds. As the diagram shows, they were all around her ear and ultimately caused a temporal skull fracture. It was very obvious that this was a very hard attack, as all were very deep and gaping.

Blunt force Injury #4

Michelle’s neck appeared very swollen and was a medium shade of pink. The ME said this was evidence of attempted strangulation. The perpendicular scratch marks appeared as her own, obviously done in a desperate attempt to pull the killer’s hands off.

Blunt force Injury #5

Michelle’s face showed a once beautiful girl with swollen, contorted features. Her upper and lower lips were badly swollen and bruised. Her tongue was very swollen and protruding. The complex mandible fractures described in the report was in layman’s term, a very badly broken jaw around the chin and upper gums, where 3 upper front teeth were missing. Another photo showed 3 perfectly formed teeth, with roots intact. In other words, these 3 teeth were totally knocked /ejected from Michelle’s gums, not just broken off. In addition, there were 2 additional fragmented teeth broken from the lower jaw. As we all know, there was another partial tooth found in the home by the Young Family after the crime scene investigators left. It was confirmed to me that this tooth fragment matched Michelle’s remaining tooth mast.

Blunt force Injury #6 and #7

Both of Michelle’s outside surface of the hands appeared extremely swollen and badly bruised. In fact, several of her fingers appeared at least 25 % larger than normal. The swelling was so pronounced, I compare it to a time I was stung by a wasp and my hand swelled tremendously.

Blunt force Injury #8, # 9, #10

This group of 13 severe wounds and abrasions to the back of the head was very hard to look at. These were not just “cuts”, but were gaping gashes directly on the back of head. Many of these severe lacerations were carved very deep all the way to the skull. The drawings you see on the report cannot come close to helping you truly understand the gravity of the vicious wounds.

Michelle’s brain showed extreme bleeding on both sides. There was a skull fracture present in the base of the skull. I was told this type of skull fracture is very rare since it take a tremendous force to the back of the head to cause one. Another clue to what occurred here.

Blunt force injury to the head.
Multiple lacerations
Extensive abrasions and contusions
Multiple fractures of the mandible
Avulsion of multiple teeth
Fracture of the left temporal bone
Linear fracture of the base of the skull
Subarachnoid hemorrhage of the brain
Blunt force injury to the nect consistent with manual strangulation
Scratches on the left side of the neck consistent with fingernail marks
Hemorrhage of the strap muscles of the left side of the neck
Blunt force injury to the left deltoid region
Abrasion
Multiple contusions
Blunt force injury to the extremities
Laceration of the left thumb
Abrasion of the right wrist
Multiple confluent contusions of both hands
Intrauterine pregnancy

Thanks RPD.......JUSTICE FOR MICHELLE & RYLAN

 

[sunshine05]

I'm not sure why you and others continue to attribute "overkill" injuries to JY ... that it HAS to be him because of the brutality of it. I'm not buying it. There are plenty of random/non-spousal murders that can be classified as "overkill". There's the recent one in N. Raleigh - totally random crime. Why did they "overkill"? They didn't even know the woman.

The fact that there are two separate shoe prints at the murder scene can't be ignored and add it to CB's testimony about seeing a male and female in a car in their driveway at 5:30AM is further confirmation that two people were responsible for this, not JY.

 

[JusticeFever]

I'm not sure why you and others continue to attribute "overkill" injuries to JY ... that it HAS to be him because of the brutality of it. I'm not buying it. There are plenty of random/non-spousal murders that can be classified as "overkill". There's the recent one in N. Raleigh - totally random crime. Why did they "overkill"? They didn't even know the woman.

The fact that there are two separate shoe prints at the murder scene can't be ignored and add it to CB's testimony about seeing a male and female in a car in their driveway at 5:30AM is further confirmation that two people were responsible for this, not JY.

It is exactly the overkill that leads me away from Jason Young.
Whoever killed Michelle was in a complete rage, not something someone would have after driving 340 miles,

Look at the overkill in the Taft case for instance, also right there in Raleigh, NC.
"Kathy Taft was struck so hard on the left side of the back of her head that the ME counted 22 pieces of bone as he tried to reconstruct the missing fragments of her skull".
Kathy Taft was killed by a complete stranger.

Link: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/kathy_taft/story/11113145/

 

[minor4th]

I've been re listening to testimony. The thing is, there is SO much circumstantial evidence pointing at Jason Young and none that points to a different perpetrator.

The fact that there are a couple if things that aren't explained or that we don't have an answer for - that does not raise reasonable doubt. They are just things we don't know, and that's true of every murder case. If there's no confession, you're never going to know exactly what happened.

 

[minor4th]

I'm not sure why you and others continue to attribute "overkill" injuries to JY ... that it HAS to be him because of the brutality of it. I'm not buying it. There are plenty of random/non-spousal murders that can be classified as "overkill". There's the recent one in N. Raleigh - totally random crime. Why did they "overkill"? They didn't even know the woman.



The fact that there are two separate shoe prints at the murder scene can't be ignored and add it to CB's testimony about seeing a male and female in a car in their driveway at 5:30AM is further confirmation that two people were responsible for this, not JY.

The fact that a witness saw a man and a woman in the Young's driveway means nothing. It could have been someone who made a wrong turn and was turning around in the Young's driveway or the witness may have been confused about the time or what she saw.

The overkill is just one aspect that points to Jason. That alone doesn't prove he is the killer, but it's one piece of evidence that along with all the other evidence proves that he is the killer - beyond reasonable doubt. IMO.

 

[JusticeFever]

I've been re listening to testimony. The thing is, there is SO much circumstantial evidence pointing at Jason Young and none that points to a different perpetrator.

The fact that there are a couple if things that aren't explained or that we don't have an answer for - that does not raise reasonable doubt. They are just things we don't know, and that's true of every border case. If there's no confession, you're never going to know exactly what happened.

How do you explain 8 jurors from the first trial finding reasonable doubt?

 

[minor4th]

How do you explain 8 jurors from the first trial finding reasonable doubt?

I can't say - I have not listened to the testimony from the first trial. Can you give a quick summary about what was different in the first trial?

If I had to guess if say it's because the prosecution in the first trial had to make their case without knowing what Jason Young would say on the stand. They didn't have time then to prepare a rebuttal to all of his testimony so that's one thing that could have made a big difference between the first trial and the second.

 

[JusticeFever]

The fact that a witness saw a man and a woman in the Young's driveway means nothing. It could have been someone who made a wrong turn and was turning around in the Young's driveway or the witness may have been confused about the time or what she saw.

The overkill is just one aspect that points to Jason. That alone doesn't prove he is the killer, but it's one piece of evidence that along with all the other evidence proves that he is the killer - beyond reasonable doubt. IMO.

There are actually 2 witnesses who saw some type of car activity that am in the driveway or near the house. One of those witnesses lived on the street for 21 years, went past that house every single morning on her way to work, to a job she had for 28 years.

 

[JusticeFever]

I can't say - I have not listened to the testimony from the first trial. Can you give a quick summary about what was different in the first trial?

If I had to guess if say it's because the prosecution in the first trial had to make their case without knowing what Jason Young would say on the stand. They didn't have time then to prepare a rebuttal to all of his testimony so that's one thing that could have made a big difference between the first trial and the second.

It's very likely the state talked to the first set of Jurors and asked them questions, I posted a link above about what the foreperson had to say. In the 2nd trial, they had Jason's testmony and they added the day care workers and a few others, I didn't see that much difference . However, in Trial 1, Jason Young caught the state off guard when he took the stand. They were not prepared for him at all. My personal belief? The state was overly confident, and thought they had a slam dunk case. They did not. They did get their conviction in Trial 2, but that conviction has been overturned. Now, we wait to see what Raleigh will do with these 3 overturned murder convictions. Plea deals, maybe?

 

[JusticeFever]

The fact that a witness saw a man and a woman in the Young's driveway means nothing. It could have been someone who made a wrong turn and was turning around in the Young's driveway or the witness may have been confused about the time or what she saw.

The overkill is just one aspect that points to Jason. That alone doesn't prove he is the killer, but it's one piece of evidence that along with all the other evidence proves that he is the killer - beyond reasonable doubt. IMO.

I just posted a link to another murder in Raleigh that was overkill by a complete stranger. Michelle fought back, there was a struggle.... I remember the sheriff (Donnie Harrison) saying, "there was a struggle and I will leave it at"
Actually, Donnie Harrison said there was QUITE a struggle.

 

[citygirl]

I can't say - I have not listened to the testimony from the first trial. Can you give a quick summary about what was different in the first trial?

If I had to guess if say it's because the prosecution in the first trial had to make their case without knowing what Jason Young would say on the stand. They didn't have time then to prepare a rebuttal to all of his testimony so that's one thing that could have made a big difference between the first trial and the second.

You nailed it, IMO. His testimony was very revealing. His attorneys protected him all those years by telling him not to speak. They bought him valuable time; time he could spend with his daughter and family. I believe all things happen for a reason. I never advocated his daughter being wrenched immediately from him. She needed her daddy. And she wasn't the problem. The problem was her mother and she had been eliminated.

 

[citygirl]

It's very likely the state talked to the first set of Jurors and asked them questions, I posted a link above about what the foreperson had to say. In the 2nd trial, they had Jason's testmony and they added the day care workers and a few others, I didn't see that much difference . However, in Trial 1, Jason Young caught the state off guard when he took the stand. They were not prepared for him at all. My personal belief? The state was overly confident, and thought they had a slam dunk case. They did not. They did get their conviction in Trial 2, but that conviction has been overturned. Now, we wait to see what Raleigh will do with these 3 overturned murder convictions. Plea deals, maybe?

I have to agree with you here. I do believe the pros thought they had a slam dunk case. The second trial, IMO, was different because he testified in the first. And I saw a big difference. What were they thinking in the first trial deciding to have him take the stand? After all those years of silence? Did that sway the jury's decision in the first trial? Have we heard? Do we know?

 

[oenophile]

I've been re listening to testimony. The thing is, there is SO much circumstantial evidence pointing at Jason Young and none that points to a different perpetrator.

The fact that there are a couple if things that aren't explained or that we don't have an answer for - that does not raise reasonable doubt. They are just things we don't know, and that's true of every murder case. If there's no confession, you're never going to know exactly what happened.

It does raise reasonable doubt if they are exculpatory (and that says nothing to whether or not the state actually provided enough evidence that he did it even without exculpatory evidence, which it is not clear that they did).

Jason Young has an alibi. At this point, the state doesn't seem to have, in any way, proven that that alibi is false. It has all been supposition and a witness that lacks credibility. They have a crime scene that is, at best, a mixed bag of things that may indicate that he did it, and things that may indicate that he didn't do it.

I don't see how you can get past reasonable doubt.

Finally, "raising reasonable doubt" puts the burden on the defense. The burden isn't on the defense, it is on the prosecution. The defense doesn't need to raise reasonable doubt, the prosecution needs to overcome reasonable doubt. The defendant is presumed innocent.

 

[minor4th]

I agree also that the prosecutors were overconfident the first time around. And over zealous the second time around. I want to see a fair trial and get an honest verdict.

 

[oenophile]

Trial 1: JY takes the stand, result is hung jury with most voting for acquittal.
Trial 2: JY doesn't take the stand, guilty verdict, overturned.

My top of mind question: will he take the stand on the third trial?

 

[citygirl]

It does raise reasonable doubt if they are exculpatory (and that says nothing to whether or not the state actually provided enough evidence that he did it even without exculpatory evidence, which it is not clear that they did).

Jason Young has an alibi. At this point, the state doesn't seem to have, in any way, proven that that alibi is false. It has all been supposition and a witness that lacks credibility. They have a crime scene that is, at best, a mixed bag of things that may indicate that he did it, and things that may indicate that he didn't do it.

I don't see how you can get past reasonable doubt.

Finally, "raising reasonable doubt" puts the burden on the defense. The burden isn't on the defense, it is on the prosecution. The defense doesn't need to raise reasonable doubt, the prosecution needs to overcome reasonable doubt. The defendant is presumed innocent.

I'm sorry. He may have an alibi because he wasn't home. To me it ends there.

 

[JusticeFever]

But, if there was a struggle, and I think there had to be, some of Michelle's injuries were defensive wounds, then she had to land a mark somewhere on the killer. Something, a scratch, a bite mark something! Jason Young had nothing on him to suggest he was in a struggle or fight of any kind.

 

[oenophile]

Another unrelated question, and this is more generic:

Would a defense attorney recommend to a client to take a plea on a murder charge if they believed their client was innocent?