Jason Young to get new trial #2

[sunshine05]

There was blood in the closet. On one of JY's shoes. They tested it for DNA. It wasn't JY's.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the blood on one of his shoes. I wonder if investigators ever compared the DNA on -

- JY's shoe
- jewelry box
- medicine dropper in CY's room

to see if they matched. Do we know if they are all from the same unidentified person?

 

[jova33]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the blood on one of his shoes. I wonder if investigators ever compared the DNA on -

- JY's shoe
- jewelry box
- medicine dropper in CY's room

to see if they matched. Do we know if they are all from the same unidentified person?

The lab techs seemed pretty legit. The DNA was tested against 27 known DNA samples from family, police, JY and MY, and it was also run through CODIS.

Edit: plural lab techs. There was a female and a male that I remembered testifying. If anything was missed, I would say it was just shoddy police work. CY's socks and the bedsheets were never tested. Who knows what DNA might've been on that.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[citygirl]

JY IS ABSOLUTELY a victim if he is being falsely accused of murder! The quote snipped from the previous thread is a colorful accusation designed to smear JY. Just like everyone else, the author doesn't know if he did it, the author only suspects he did it. Stating accusations as fact harms everyone.

IMO, JY is NO victim. The only victim is Michelle Young. He is the perp, she is the victim, along with her daughter, mother and sister.

 

[oenophile]

IMO, JY is NO victim. The only victim is Michelle Young. He is the perp, she is the victim, along with her daughter, mother and sister.

Of course, because you, like many others here, decided he was guilty regardless of the evidence presented at trial. As someone else said, nothing will convince you otherwise. Basically, he is being asked to prove his innocence. However, this goes against the judicial system that says the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

IF he is innocent, and the evidence strongly suggests that he is, then those that continue to label him a murderer are in fact causing both him and his family harm.

What bothers me the most is the certainty of those who believe he is guilty. Even the idea that he may be innocent of this crime is offensive to those absolutely convinced of his guilt. I think we are all shocked at the senseless death of MY, and we all want to find someone to blame. It is almost comforting to blame JY, regardless of whether he did it or not, because at least you feel a sense of justice for MY. If she was in fact murdered by someone unknown, for whom the trail is cold, then there is no one to blame and therefore no justice.

Thus, people take solace in blaming JY. However, while blaming an innocent person may make outside observers feel like justice is served, it destroys a second life that can never get past the accusations.

There is a reason why, in the eyes of the law, the accused are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. And this is precisely an example of that. JY was assumed guilty from the beginning in the eyes of LE and, to a large extent, in the eyes of the public. But as of the moment, he is innocent until proven guilty. And he has not been proven guilty in a fair trial. (And I'll note, sometimes even fair trials result in convictions of the innocent)

There is a lot of hyperbole on this thread and on others about how evil a person JY is and that he should rot in jail for the rest of his life. And, you know, IF he did commit this crime, I would agree with you. The problem is, the evidence doesn't support a solid conclusion either way.

Every time someone says, with absolute certainty, how justice will be served by making JY suffer, I think of all the times in the history of mankind where certainty in ones conclusions resulted in great suffering of innocent people. Witch trials. Genocides. War.

And I ask, why are those so convinced of his guilt unwilling to entertain the possibility of his innocence?

 

[citygirl]

Of course, because you, like many others here, decided he was guilty regardless of the evidence presented at trial. As someone else said, nothing will convince you otherwise. Basically, he is being asked to prove his innocence. However, this goes against the judicial system that says the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

IF he is innocent, and the evidence strongly suggests that he is, then those that continue to label him a murderer are in fact causing both him and his family harm.

What bothers me the most is the certainty of those who believe he is guilty. Even the idea that he may be innocent of this crime is offensive to those absolutely convinced of his guilt. I think we are all shocked at the senseless death of MY, and we all want to find someone to blame. It is almost comforting to blame JY, regardless of whether he did it or not, because at least you feel a sense of justice for MY. If she was in fact murdered by someone unknown, for whom the trail is cold, then there is no one to blame and therefore no justice.

Thus, people take solace in blaming JY. However, while blaming an innocent person may make outside observers feel like justice is served, it destroys a second life that can never get past the accusations.

There is a reason why, in the eyes of the law, the accused are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. And this is precisely an example of that. JY was assumed guilty from the beginning in the eyes of LE and, to a large extent, in the eyes of the public. But as of the moment, he is innocent until proven guilty. And he has not been proven guilty in a fair trial. (And I'll note, sometimes even fair trials result in convictions of the innocent)

There is a lot of hyperbole on this thread and on others about how evil a person JY is and that he should rot in jail for the rest of his life. And, you know, IF he did commit this crime, I would agree with you. The problem is, the evidence doesn't support a solid conclusion either way.

Every time someone says, with absolute certainty, how justice will be served by making JY suffer, I think of all the times in the history of mankind where certainty in ones conclusions resulted in great suffering of innocent people. Witch trials. Genocides. War.

And I ask, why are those so convinced of his guilt unwilling to entertain the possibility of his innocence?

Of course, because you, like many others here, decided he was guilty regardless of the evidence presented at trial. As someone else said, nothing will convince you otherwise. Basically, he is being asked to prove his innocence. However, this goes against the judicial system that says the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Why would you assume that? I decided on his guilt based on the evidence presented at trial. Who said nothing would convince me otherwise? Does that person know me personally? I'm confused? Are you bundling me in the group that disagrees with you?

 

[citygirl]

Of course, because you, like many others here, decided he was guilty regardless of the evidence presented at trial. As someone else said, nothing will convince you otherwise. Basically, he is being asked to prove his innocence. However, this goes against the judicial system that says the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

IF he is innocent, and the evidence strongly suggests that he is, then those that continue to label him a murderer are in fact causing both him and his family harm.

What bothers me the most is the certainty of those who believe he is guilty. Even the idea that he may be innocent of this crime is offensive to those absolutely convinced of his guilt. I think we are all shocked at the senseless death of MY, and we all want to find someone to blame. It is almost comforting to blame JY, regardless of whether he did it or not, because at least you feel a sense of justice for MY. If she was in fact murdered by someone unknown, for whom the trail is cold, then there is no one to blame and therefore no justice.

Thus, people take solace in blaming JY. However, while blaming an innocent person may make outside observers feel like justice is served, it destroys a second life that can never get past the accusations.

There is a reason why, in the eyes of the law, the accused are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. And this is precisely an example of that. JY was assumed guilty from the beginning in the eyes of LE and, to a large extent, in the eyes of the public. But as of the moment, he is innocent until proven guilty. And he has not been proven guilty in a fair trial. (And I'll note, sometimes even fair trials result in convictions of the innocent)

There is a lot of hyperbole on this thread and on others about how evil a person JY is and that he should rot in jail for the rest of his life. And, you know, IF he did commit this crime, I would agree with you. The problem is, the evidence doesn't support a solid conclusion either way.

Every time someone says, with absolute certainty, how justice will be served by making JY suffer, I think of all the times in the history of mankind where certainty in ones conclusions resulted in great suffering of innocent people. Witch trials. Genocides. War.

And I ask, why are those so convinced of his guilt unwilling to entertain the possibility of his innocence?

Thus, people take solace in blaming JY. However, while blaming an innocent person may make outside observers feel like justice is served, it destroys a second life that can never get past the accusations.

I take issue with this. You are telling me how I feel. I take NO solace in the fact that JY is guilty as I see it. There are no winners. It's a sad case all around. Should never have happened. But it did. He decided that, IMO. And justice should be served.

 

[oenophile]

Of course, because you, like many others here, decided he was guilty regardless of the evidence presented at trial. As someone else said, nothing will convince you otherwise. Basically, he is being asked to prove his innocence. However, this goes against the judicial system that says the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Why would you assume that? I decided on his guilt based on the evidence presented at trial. Who said nothing would convince me otherwise? Does that person know me personally? I'm confused? Are you bundling me in the group that disagrees with you?

My second sentence was somewhat rhetorical in connection with an earlier poster (not you in particular), sorry, I should have clarified that. And I'm not certain what group agrees with me, as I am rather undecided about the guilt or innocence of JY. What I am certain of is that it is no one can be certain of his guilt. And your statement indicated a degree of certainty that is simply not supported by the evidence.

 

[oenophile]

I take issue with this. You are telling me how I feel. I take NO solace in the fact that JY is guilty as I see it. There are no winners. It's a sad case all around. Should never have happened. But it did. He decided that, IMO. And justice should be served.

In this case, I wasn't speaking to you in particular, but let me ask you this: is it better for JY to be convicted of this crime and go to prison than for the crime to remain unsolved in perpetuity?

 

[citygirl]

My second sentence was somewhat rhetorical in connection with an earlier poster (not you in particular), sorry, I should have clarified that. And I'm not certain what group agrees with me, as I am rather undecided about the guilt or innocence of JY. What I am certain of is that it is no one can be certain of his guilt. And your statement indicated a degree of certainty that is simply not supported by the evidence.

I am certain of his guilt based on the evidence as I see it. The fact that you see the evidence as unsupportive of guilt is your opinion.

 

[oenophile]

Why would you assume that? I decided on his guilt based on the evidence presented at trial. Who said nothing would convince me otherwise? Does that person know me personally? I'm confused? Are you bundling me in the group that disagrees with you?

Your statement was very strong: JY is not a victim, he committed the crime.

I understand that you believe that he did indeed murder MY. But let me ask you this: Do you believe that it is reasonably possible that he did not commit the crime? And if it is reasonably possible, then do you believe that it would be an injustice to him if he were falsely convicted?

 

[citygirl]

In this case, I wasn't speaking to you in particular, but let me ask you this: is it better for JY to be convicted of this crime and go to prison than for the crime to remain unsolved in perpetuity?

Why would you want this case unsolved in perpetuity?
He's been found guilty based on the evidence. Done.

 

[citygirl]

Your statement was very strong: JY is not a victim, he committed the crime.

I understand that you believe that he did indeed murder MY. But let me ask you this: Do you believe that it is reasonably possible that he did not commit the crime? And if it is reasonably possible, then do you believe that it would be an injustice to him if he were falsely convicted?

Oh my, would love to know who you are.
No and
No.

 

[oenophile]

I am certain of his guilt based on the evidence as I see it. The fact that you see the evidence as unsupportive of guilt is your opinion.

It is the certainty that troubles me. It is clear that there are a large number of people that are uncertain of his guilt, and some that believe that he is innocent. I personally do not have a strong opinion either way, as I did not watch the trial from beginning to end, although I do presume his innocence. However, based on the summary of the evidence presented here, it seems pretty clear that there are doubts, the only question is whether they are reasonable doubts or not. I do not see the evidence that leads to such certainty.

So it comes down to two questions. Do you admit the possibility that he may be innocent? And if he is innocent, do you agree that means he is also a victim?

 

[oenophile]

Why would you want this case unsolved in perpetuity?
He's been found guilty based on the evidence. Done.

Actually false. His trial was determined to be not a fair trial. He was never found guilty in the eyes of the law.

I don't want this case to be unsolved in perpetuity. What I'm saying is that the public is more interested in closing the case and blaming someone who may be innocent (i.e. the husband) than admitting that they may never find the killer or killers.

 

[oenophile]

Oh my, would love to know who you are.
No and
No.

Why?

And the responses to my questions prove my point entirely.

 

[citygirl]

It is the certainty that troubles me. It is clear that there are a large number of people that are uncertain of his guilt, and some that believe that he is innocent. I personally do not have a strong opinion either way, as I did not watch the trial from beginning to end, although I do presume his innocence. However, based on the summary of the evidence presented here, it seems pretty clear that there are doubts, the only question is whether they are reasonable doubts or not. I do not see the evidence that leads to such certainty.

So it comes down to two questions. Do you admit the possibility that he may be innocent? And if he is innocent, do you agree that means he is also a victim?

Why are you taken with the number of people that are uncertain of his guilt and those that think he is innocent? I really question whether you have an opinion one way or another? Let's flip the coin. Do you admit the possibility that he may be guilty? And if so, is this 3rd trial a waste of time?

 

[oenophile]

Why are you taken with the number of people that are uncertain of his guilt and those that think he is innocent? I really question whether you have an opinion one way or another? Let's flip the coin. Do you admit the possibility that he may be guilty? And if so, is this 3rd trial a waste of time?

Sure. I absolutely admit the possibility that he may be guilty. I felt he was guilty based on his testimony in the first trial. My problem is that the evidence really doesn't prove his guilt one way or the other. It proves that he MAY have killed her. But it doesn't prove that he actually did do it.

The way that I approach a trial is as follows. First, I presume both innocence and guilt. If innocent, does the evidence make sense in the light of he/she being innocent. If guilty, does the evidence make sense in the light of he/she being guilty. In this case, I see both being viable. If there were evidence that would negate his innocence, then my opinion would change. In the case of JY, the evidence seems to fit better (albeit not perfectly) with the innocent scenario. But I absolutely think it is possible that he did it.

As to whether the 3rd trial is a waste of time, hard to say. I do think there is probable cause to bring JY to trial. But thus far, I am so disillusioned with the Wake County DA's office that I do think it is likely a waste of time.

 

[JusticeFever]

My concerns about guilt or innocence have always been based on these 12 elements and I have not in almost 8 years been able to get past them.
1) The timeline is nearly impossible....
2) How in the world anyone can believe Gracie Dahms
3) The manner in which MY was killed, pure rage, heat of the moment
4) Cars seen near or at the residence when he couldn't possibly be there
5) Michelle fought back, there was a struggle, where are the marks on Young.
6) No motive, not an insurance policy he could never cash,
7) All the rumors surrounding the case that just were not true
8) Nothing in his SUV, not a drop of blood, not a hair , not a fiber, not a trace
9) Keith Hicks not being able to see the door was ajar, he went there 2x, once to hang a newspaper on the door and once to put a receipt under the door.
10) No one sees Jason driving away from the hotel @ midnight, no one sees Jason driving back into the hotel the next morning, and no signs of Jason in the lobby, on the grounds, and no other guest or employee sees him that morning. Why? How did he become so invisible? He was seen checking in, he is seen getting on an elevator, he was seen walking down the hallway, how did he get himself and his luggage out of the hotel without being on some camera somewhere in the hotel?
11) The twig worked, that was a risky gamble if it hadn't.
12) Camera had been messed with before, same hotel, same stairwell, same camera.
I have more, but it's been posted over and over by people who have doubts, so, until we learn if there is a trial 3, its just the same thing over and over.

 

[sunshine05]

The lab techs seemed pretty legit. The DNA was tested against 27 known DNA samples from family, police, JY and MY, and it was also run through CODIS.

Edit: plural lab techs. There was a female and a male that I remembered testifying. If anything was missed, I would say it was just shoddy police work. CY's socks and the bedsheets were never tested. Who knows what DNA might've been on that.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

That's not what I meant. I mean did they see if the unidentified DNA was the *same* profile in all three cases. I'm not asking if it matched a known sample.

 

[JusticeFever]

I was just asking a question......I couldn't remember why we think she was awake. I will just read from now on.

I missed this, and it is actually a good question, and I hope you will post some more.