Jason Young to get new trial #2

[sunshine05]

Yep, that's it. His animated description of the whole match book going up in flames. Someone said this was 6 years later. Not sure that is legit but, c'mon. Are you kidding me? He remembers that detail? Baloney! He was lying. Padding his alibi.

Why wouldn't a person remember that? This was the night before his whole world crashed around him. I don't find that odd at all.

Again, does the State allege that instead of smoking a cigar he was driving to Raleigh? I just want to make sure I understand.

 

[citygirl]

Why wouldn't a person remember that? This was the night before his whole world crashed around him. I don't find that odd at all.

Again, does the State allege that instead of smoking a cigar he was driving to Raleigh? I just want to make sure I understand.

That's where we differ. I don't believe he thought this was the night where his whole world crashed around him. He was just beginning to live. I think he was unfazed. He was writing his story, his alibi. He was right and everyone else would eventually conform. Because his wife didn't matter. IMO.

 

[sunshine05]

That's where we differ. I don't believe he thought this was the night where his whole world crashed around him. He was just beginning to live. I think he was unfazed. He was writing his story, his alibi. He was right and everyone else would eventually conform. Because his wife didn't matter. IMO.

But if we are to agree that he's innocent, the actions of the evening before would be forever imprinted in one's mind. Think about a traumatic occurrence in your life, I'll bet you can remember exactly where you were and what you were doing around that time.

 

[sunshine05]

But really, the main thing about the cigar is - what difference does it make? So what if he said I stepped out for a minute and don't really remember what I was doing. Does it matter?

If the State alleges that instead of smoking a cigar, he was enroute to Raleigh to commit a murder, then he just walked right in front of a camera in clear sight. Why would he have bothered to unplug the camera in the stairwell? We saw him exiting the building.

 

[JusticeFever]

Full length 911 call:

http://justiceforbradcooper.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mf911call.mp4

That is the first time since I read about this case in '06 that I heard the entire call, I just heard the 3-4 minute version.
Two things stuck out, and 1) is that MF says CY said that someone was there,,,,,
2) the operator asked if Michelle was having any problems, and MF said that MY and JY fight a little bit.
Both of these are after the 8 minute mark, which is why I never heard them before.
Baffled.
Anyway, thank you for posting.

 

[sunshine05]

That is the first time since I read about this case in '06 that I heard the entire call, I just heard the 3-4 minute version.

Two things stuck out, and 1) is that MF says CY said that someone was there,,,,,
2) the operator asked if Michelle was having any problems, and MF said that MY and JY fight a little bit.

Both of these are after the 8 minute mark, which is why I never heard them before.
Baffled.
Anyway, thank you for posting.

Yes, already planting the seed that JY could be involved. During the 2nd trial, Collins went through the transcript with her and pointed these things out. It was very interesting.

 

[citygirl]

But if we are to agree that he's innocent, the actions of the evening before would be forever imprinted in one's mind. Think about a traumatic occurrence in your life, I'll bet you can remember exactly where you were and what you were doing around that time.

Here is the rub. I don't agree that he is not guilty.

 

[sunshine05]

Here is the rub. I don't agree that he is not guilty.

You don't have to. My point is that if he is innocent, it is perfectly understandable that he has a memory of something like that around the time of a life shattering event.

I really want to understand why we have to call into question the cigar smoking at all. What difference does it make what he said he was doing? The State has to prove that he drove to Raleigh instead of smoking and they can't do it.

 

[minor4th]

You do know he had the receipt for his stay at the hotel that was slipped under his door sometime in the middle of the night, and that his luggage was there too.

Sure. He went and grabbed it from under the door or had another one printed after he returned from his murder journey.

How do you know his luggage was still in his room while he was away?

 

[minor4th]

But he walked right out in front of the hallway camera so clearly wasn't trying to hide the fact that he was exiting the building. Just to the left was the door with the unplugged camera. Why didn't he unplug THIS camera if he was trying not to be seen?

Because he wanted to be seen at certain points - part of his alibi. But he couldn't afford to have the other cameras showing him not returning to his room and staying there the entire night. IMO

 

[citygirl]

You don't have to. My point is that if he is innocent, it is perfectly understandable that he has a memory of something like that around the time of a life shattering event.

I really want to understand why we have to call into question the cigar smoking at all. What difference does it make what he said he was doing? The State has to prove that he drove to Raleigh instead of smoking and they can't do it.

It's germane to the discussion because it was part of his testimony. You would have to ask him why he deemed it necessary? Why did he testify to it? His long, convoluted, detailed explanation? He must have felt it was necessary?

 

[minor4th]

Let's keep in mind that JY did not speak at all to anyone about his actions that night from the time if the murder until he testified -- at which point he and his attorney had every bit of evidence, witness statements, etc from the police and prosecutors.

When you know all the evidence - you can tailor your testimony to account for every detail.

 

[Vicky0105]

I am a local and have followed these cases for years. I know a little bit about the law and, never, was hearsay allowed to be entered into the trials of defendants. However, things seem to have changed. The amount of hearsay evidence that was allowed in this case was stricktly to assassinate the character of the accused.

Many of you seem so set on JY's guilt without concrete proof. There is so much reasonable doubt. I am just wondering if you are friends or family that know something the rest of us don't that wasn't admitted at trial?

Our justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". It has become "guilty until proven innocent". We should all be very concerned about this.

 

[minor4th]

I am a local and have followed these cases for years. I know a little bit about the law and, never, was hearsay allowed to be entered into the trials of defendants. However, things seem to have changed. The amount of hearsay evidence that was allowed in this case was stricktly to assassinate the character of the accused.



Many of you seem so set on JY's guilt without concrete proof. There is so much reasonable doubt. I am just wondering if you are friends or family that know something the rest of us don't that wasn't admitted at trial?



Our justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". It has become "guilty until proven innocent". We should all be very concerned about this.

Well he's been proven guilty once. The jurors and judge have to presume innocence when he goes to trial again, but we don't have to presume innocence for purposes of discussion.

What hearsay from his trial is bothering you?

 

[jova33]

Well he's been proven guilty once. The jurors and judge have to presume innocence when he goes to trial again, but we don't have to presume innocence for purposes of discussion.

What hearsay from his trial is bothering you?

The daycare workers testimony, friends and family talking about their martial problems. One woman who testified, she didn't testify to this, but in an interview said she knew JY was guilty before any evidence came out.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[JusticeFever]

Sure. He went and grabbed it from under the door or had another one printed after he returned from his murder journey.

How do you know his luggage was still in his room while he was away?

The hotel receipt was placed under his door around a time he could not have been there if you want to believe JY was in Raleigh, and a newspaper that was placed on his door handle at a time he could not have been there. And, since there are photos of him coming into the hotel and getting on an elevator with his luggage, and there are no photos of him walking out of the hotel at midnight with his luggage, I am not following your logic. He had to come back to the hotel, you know that, right?
Have you listened to Keith Hicks testimony? Let me find a link.

 

[Vicky0105]

There was a hung jury the first time....in the second trial, the judge allowed third party (hearsay) testimony from the day care worker...completely meant to taint his character to the jury...testimony from friends (again hearsay) of things Michelle said happened..not all witnessed first hand. Maybe you know something the rest of us don't. But our justice system says we are innocent until proven guilty. I've seen a couple of trials lately where this doesn't seem to apply. The hard evidence is not there. There is reasonable doubt.

If JY is guilty, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. I just don't think the State proved their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". I hope they'll go back and investigate further and present a more iron-clad case during the next trial.

 

[JusticeFever]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9709817/

Keith Hicks:Hampton Inn Hotel Employee

 

[Vicky0105]

If our justice system strictly revolves around circumstantial evidence in convicting us of crimes, then we are all guilty of some crime (no matter how big or small and no matter if we did it or not). With the forensic technology we have today, it's a shame that anyone be convicted on circumstantial evidence and spend the rest of their life in prison if they are innocent. We should be looking for the absolute truth...not resolution or revenge.

 

[Vicky0105]

Well he's been proven guilty once. The jurors and judge have to presume innocence when he goes to trial again, but we don't have to presume innocence for purposes of discussion.

What hearsay from his trial is bothering you?

Ok, for discussion purposes, do you know intimate details of JY and MY's relationship, and the circumstances or events that led up to the murder that we are not privy to? Anything that hasn't already been testified to in court?