Jason Young to get new trial #2

[Madeleine74]

Nobody does it with a 2-year-old in the house.

Nobody ever? Want to rethink that? Clearly in this case MY's purse was on the floor. It wasn't stolen, her wallet wasn't taken. Arguing about what a woman would/wouldn't do has nothing to do with what is.

 

[Grammy Jean]

I would like all the posters that believe this case has reasonable doubt to weigh in on their opinion on the Scott Peterson case. Please just really curious on hearing your opinions.

 

[Madeleine74]

Fingerprints, like those on the camera, can not be sourced to a specific date. That camera was touched by other people -- first it had to be installed, tested, moved to cover the right area. We know the camera had been moved once before by teens having a party some years before. And then again that fateful night it was moved. Unplugging the camera didn't require touching the camera, the cord could be hit and disconnected. This was demonstrated in court. Ditto moving the camera away. A hit with a knuckle could move the camera and not leave palm or fingerprints.

The coincidence part, which seems to be confusing to some, is that the camera was first unplugged then moved (thus tampered with 2 times) the night JY uses that very staircase and goes outside and is never seen (on camera) again. It was tampered with the 2nd time at the point he would have returned from Raleigh. That is a coincidence which doesn't seem like a coincidence at all. The person who purposely first unplugged the camera that night and then moved the camera the next morning needed to not be seen on that very camera.

Finally, an argument was made upstream that the cameras cycle every 14 seconds and JY wouldn't know the cycle time. So how does one account for the fact that JY was allegedly in the breakfast area (so he claims) the next morning and yet is not seen on any camera covering that area? He would have spent more than 14 seconds getting whatever he got for his morning meal, vastly increasing the chance he'd be seen on that/those cameras.

 

[oenophile]

The coincidence part, which seems to be confusing to some, is that the camera was first unplugged then moved (thus tampered with 2 times) the night JY uses that very staircase and goes outside and is never seen (on camera) again. It was tampered with the 2nd time at the point he would have returned from Raleigh. That is a coincidence which doesn't seem like a coincidence at all. The person who purposely first unplugged the camera that night and then moved the camera the next morning needed to not be seen on that very camera.

Actually that suggests that it wasn't him that tampered with it. If you tamper with it before you leave, then theoretically you can tamper from outside of the field of view of the camera in order to not be seen going through the door. If you come back and the camera has been turned back on, then you would have to be in the field of the camera in order to get from the door to the camera, at which point you would be outside the field and no longer need to tamper with it.

 

[JusticeFever]

Where is any video that shows Jason Young coming back to the hotel in the early am hours or leaving again later with his luggage and receipt? Based on the absence of any such camera sighting, JY either climbed out a window or he is still on the Hampton Inn premises.

 

[JusticeFever]

Do you think any of these are related to Jason Young and the murder of Michelle:

• The hotel cameras that could have exonerated Jason Young (or confirmed his absence from the hotel) happened to be unplugged and subsequently pointed to the ceiling 20 minutes after Jason checked in and at a time when he says he was going to his car to get his laptop charger
  
• That the door that Jason Young acknowledged using and propping open was still propped open in the wee hours of the next morning
  
• That he left his door ajar and his entries into his room could not be recorded - at least twice. If not for this quirky coincidence, he could have proved he was in his room the whole night - or it could have been established that he was not in his room that night
  
  I am having trouble following the above. ??
  
• That JY printed out ebay auctions for auctions that expired while he was away, left them on the printer and called Meredith three times that day to ask her to retrieve them - apparently with great urgency
  
  JY was not bidding on any active auction at Ebay.
  
• That he called his mother 28 times, called Meredith 3 times about a ridiculous ebay printout, called Michelle Money several times but didn't call his wife
  
  Not true, calls were being dropped and he did not call his Mother 28x. And, he DID call Michelle, he left a voicemail.
  
• That JY was not seen on any surveillance video of the Hampton Inn breakfast area the entire morning, even though he claims to have had continental breakfast there.
  
  He was also not seen coming off the elevator, or walking down any hallway.
  
• That he expected to be awarded $4 million from life insurance
  
  No one was going to pay out on a 4 million dollar insurance policy in a murder case.
  
• That he was late to this big important sales meeting that he was handling solo for the first time
  
  LE following Jason's same route also got lost..
  
• That he owned a pair of shoes that matched the the very uncommon tread and size of a print left at the murder scene
  
• That the size 12 shoes with the rare tread that he "loved" had somehow vanished, perhaps mistakenly given to charity by his wife. The shoes were only a year old at the time of the murder
  
• That he smoked a cigar on that particular night, but none of his friends ever saw him smoke a cigar before, and there were no cigar butts found in the area where he claimed he was smoking outside, while the temp was 34 degrees and strong wind gusts -- without any kind of outerwear.

Incorrect......we don't know what was found in the trash/ashtray, there was never search of the contents that we know of.

I could go on but let's start with those. Do you think any of those quirky coincidences are related at all to Jason Young's alibi when his pregnant wife was murdered?

Just as much quirky coincidences point away.
1) Shelly Schaad testifying that she and Michelle were being watched, and being so fearful and creeped out she asked Michelle to walk her outside to her car.
2) Car sightings at the home at 5:30 am
3) Lights on in the home would suggest someone not being familiar with the home
4) CY not being scared or asking for anything but a washcloth when she was discovered, not thirsty, not hungry. Michelle put her to bed the nite before, she would not have had anything to eat or drink for almost 18 hours.

The lists can go on forever.

 

[JusticeFever]

I have to look it up, but the phone rang in the Young home at least 4-5 times that morning that CY was supposed to be in Michelle and Jason's bed. Did the phone wake her up, was it known if she would ever answer an incoming call? The phone was right next to the bed and on the side CY was said to be sleeping on. Wouldn't that have her woke up, or was she even in the house then?

An alternate theory could be that Cassidy was drugged, but not by Jason, but by whoever bought her back to the home that morning. There is no way that child slept that long in the house, without food and drink, for so many hours. Same with Mr. G, the dog.

That car and whoever was it at 5:30 am holds is key. It could hold and explain why CY was so clean, why her diaper was removed, etc, etc, etc. IMO

 

[otto]

Fingerprints, like those on the camera, can not be sourced to a specific date. That camera was touched by other people -- first it had to be installed, tested, moved to cover the right area. We know the camera had been moved once before by teens having a party some years before. And then again that fateful night it was moved. Unplugging the camera didn't require touching the camera, the cord could be hit and disconnected. This was demonstrated in court. Ditto moving the camera away. A hit with a knuckle could move the camera and not leave palm or fingerprints.

The coincidence part, which seems to be confusing to some, is that the camera was first unplugged then moved (thus tampered with 2 times) the night JY uses that very staircase and goes outside and is never seen (on camera) again. It was tampered with the 2nd time at the point he would have returned from Raleigh. That is a coincidence which doesn't seem like a coincidence at all. The person who purposely first unplugged the camera that night and then moved the camera the next morning needed to not be seen on that very camera.

Finally, an argument was made upstream that the cameras cycle every 14 seconds and JY wouldn't know the cycle time. So how does one account for the fact that JY was allegedly in the breakfast area (so he claims) the next morning and yet is not seen on any camera covering that area? He would have spent more than 14 seconds getting whatever he got for his morning meal, vastly increasing the chance he'd be seen on that/those cameras.

Weren't there about 14 cameras in the hotel, several of which would record his movements between the fourth floor hotel room and the side exit? Why was only one moved? All of them could capture his movements.

 

[shygrl]

I would like all the posters that believe this case has reasonable doubt to weigh in on their opinion on the Scott Peterson case. Please just really curious on hearing your opinions.

I am not sure if Jason young is guilty, but I do believe Scott Peterson killed his wife. IMO the young case has many more unanswered questions, but maybe the third trial will prove the case and I will be sure one way or another.

 

[Landonsmom02]

I have to look it up, but the phone rang in the Young home at least 4-5 times that morning that CY was supposed to be in Michelle and Jason's bed. Did the phone wake her up, was it known if she would ever answer an incoming call? The phone was right next to the bed and on the side CY was said to be sleeping on. Wouldn't that have her woke up, or was she even in the house then?

An alternate theory could be that Cassidy was drugged, but not by Jason, but by whoever bought her back to the home that morning. There is no way that child slept that long in the house, without food and drink, for so many hours. Same with Mr. G, the dog.

That car and whoever was it at 5:30 am holds is key. It could hold and explain why CY was so clean, why her diaper was removed, etc, etc, etc. IMO

For the life of me I can't understand what is so hard to understand that if ANYONE other than JY was there and took her from the home the Youngs would have told someone. After all, they took her away and kept her in Brevard until he gave up custody. You can believe GoJo and Kimmy would have blasted that all over the internet. I don't believe she was taken from the home. CY was very articualate for her age and it's not like she couldn't speak. Hence her trying to tell MF on the 911 call that someone was there. Now IF, it was MF who did this do you really think she would say "I think my neice is trying to say someone was here." I think CB is mistaken about seeing the car there. How is it you all discount GB but think what CB said is good as gold. Wasn't it said at trial that she was a busy body and inserted herself in this case? Guess we all see things different???

Also wasn't it said that daddy gave her fruit snacks that night?? How do we know what bed she was placed in? We don't.....Maybe the phone call is what woke her up? To me is speaks volumes that she was on JY side of the bed.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think there's a lot of confusion about the cameras, which camera was where, which one was unplugged then later moved.

If you're a fan of irony:

- How ironic that the camera that would prove JY went back to his room after "going outside to smoke a cigar," using the staircase next to the emergency/metal door he propped open, in 34 degrees with wind gusts, just happened to be disabled (unplugged that time). And no other camera captured his return back into the hotel.

- How ironic that the camera in the breakfast area that would prove JY's assertion he stopped there for his breakfast managed not to ever capture him.

 

[minor4th]

Just as much quirky coincidences point away.
1) Shelly Schaad testifying that she and Michelle were being watched, and being so fearful and creeped out she asked Michelle to walk her outside to her car.
2) Car sightings at the home at 5:30 am
3) Lights on in the home would suggest someone not being familiar with the home
4) CY not being scared or asking for anything but a washcloth when she was discovered, not thirsty, not hungry. Michelle put her to bed the nite before, she would not have had anything to eat or drink for almost 18 hours.

The lists can go on forever.

My list is longer than your list

But seriously, none of those things even come close to raising reasonable doubt IMO, especially when you compare it to the list of so-called coincidences.

 

[minor4th]

I think there's a lot of confusion about the cameras, which camera was where, which one was unplugged then later moved.

If you're a fan of irony:

- How ironic that the camera that would prove JY went back to his room after "going outside to smoke a cigar," using the staircase next to the emergency/metal door he propped open, in 34 degrees with wind gusts, just happened to be disabled (unplugged that time). And no other camera captured his return back into the hotel.

- How ironic that the camera in the breakfast area that would prove JY's assertion he stopped there for his breakfast managed not to ever capture him.

I guess he is just the unluckiest guy in the world that all of these things that could have exonerated him just happened to go awry on the night his pregnant wife was murdered

 

[minor4th]

I would like all the posters that believe this case has reasonable doubt to weigh in on their opinion on the Scott Peterson case. Please just really curious on hearing your opinions.

I've said it before - Jason Young reminds me so much of Scott Peterson

 

[sunshine05]

I guess he is just the unluckiest guy in the world that all of these things that could have exonerated him just happened to go awry on the night his pregnant wife was murdered

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.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm talking about his fingerprints. The lack of his fingerprints on the camera do nothing to indicate guilt or innocence. The existence of other fingerprints on the camera, unless they are demonstrated to be very fresh, also don't indicate much.

To me, lack of his fingerprints means the camera is not evidence that is connected with the crime. This prosecutor relied on a lot of nonexistent evidence. Kinda like telling a jury there is a smoking gun, we can't find it but please take our word for it. I'm not easily persuaded.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I would like all the posters that believe this case has reasonable doubt to weigh in on their opinion on the Scott Peterson case. Please just really curious on hearing your opinions.

I can't think of two more dissimilar cases. Laci was a missing person and no crime scene. Difficult to compare the two, imo.

 

[minor4th]

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.

No we shouldn't convict him just because the camera was tampered with. And I'm all for having a fair trial, so when all is said and done, it's possible I'll change my mind.

Believe me, I hold the State to their burden of proof and no one should be convicted based on a hunch or an emotional response. But the circumstantial evidence in this case is very strong IMO. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any doubt or beyond all possibilities. And my point all along is that there are so many "coincidences" related to Jason Young that night and the next morning that in my mind it becomes so improbable that they are all just coincidences, and it establishes proof beyond a reasonable doubt

 

[JusticeFever]

For the life of me I can't understand what is so hard to understand that if ANYONE other than JY was there and took her from the home the Youngs would have told someone. After all, they took her away and kept her in Brevard until he gave up custody. You can believe GoJo and Kimmy would have blasted that all over the internet. I don't believe she was taken from the home. CY was very articualate for her age and it's not like she couldn't speak. Hence her trying to tell MF on the 911 call that someone was there. Now IF, it was MF who did this do you really think she would say "I think my neice is trying to say someone was here." I think CB is mistaken about seeing the car there. How is it you all discount GB but think what CB said is good as gold. Wasn't it said at trial that she was a busy body and inserted herself in this case? Guess we all see things different???

Also wasn't it said that daddy gave her fruit snacks that night?? How do we know what bed she was placed in? We don't.....Maybe the phone call is what woke her up? To me is speaks volumes that she was on JY side of the bed.

You do know that LE issued a search warrant also thinking Cassidy had been removed from the home too?
Whoever said Jason gave Cassidy fruit snacks?
And I think I will believe Mrs. Beaver who lived on that street for 21 years and saw activity again at the Young driveway when she came home that afternoon.
How Gracie was ever able to testify I will never know...maybe this time the next Judge will not permit it.
Jason never gave up custody, he and MF shared legal and physical custody.
Why do things keep getting posted incorrectly?
No male doll, 2 hour business trip, another suspect from a trailer park was brought in and released, none of these are true.

 

[minor4th]

I can't think of two more dissimilar cases. Laci was a missing person and no crime scene. Difficult to compare the two, imo.

Well, Lacie wasn't a missing person, she was a murdered person who was not found immediately.

Surely you see the similarities between the two cases though? There was no direct evidence tying Scott to the murders either - just a bunch of quirky coincidences that added up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.