Jason Young to get new trial #3

[otto]

I dont think thats necessarily true of emergency exits that are restricted. Not sure though

Trust me. The building code requires exterior signage and lighting at emergency exits. It's not optional.

 

[Grammy Jean]

The problem with this is that CB and the NYT lady both saw the lights on the outside of the house. The N&O guy was clueless.

Yes, that is correct, but the problem to me is CB saw this at 5:30 and TT the NYT lady was there at 3-3;30.
I could be wrong but do not think TT testified in trial 2.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9758853/
This is the link of TT in trial 1 and I have searched archives for trial 2 and can not find that the DT called her.. My opinion is perhaps because of the timing the DT did not use her in trial 2

 

[Grammy Jean]

Yes, that is correct, but the problem to me is CB saw this at 5:30 and TT the NYT lady was there at 3-3;30.
I could be wrong but do not think TT testified in trial 2.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9758853/
This is the link of TT in trial 1 and I have searched archives for trial 2 and can not find that the DT called her.. My opinion is perhaps because of the timing the DT did not use her in trial 2

I am quoting myself because with more searching I found TT the NYT carrier and in trial 2 she testified for the state. I guess because of the timing there could be more implication that it could have been JY's SUV. There is no way TT and CB were there on Birchleaf at the same time.

 

[JusticeFever]

Yes, that is correct, but the problem to me is CB saw this at 5:30 and TT the NYT lady was there at 3-3;30.
I could be wrong but do not think TT testified in trial 2.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9758853/
This is the link of TT in trial 1 and I have searched archives for trial 2 and can not find that the DT called her.. My opinion is perhaps because of the timing the DT did not use her in trial 2

This is what is very interesting. On top of one of the search warrants Terry Tiller gives the time of 4-5 am.........the defense called her in the first trial.......but she thought the time
was more like 3:00- 4:00 am, so in the 2nd trial , the state called her......thats why you could not find her.

 

[JusticeFever]

I am quoting myself because with more searching I found TT the NYT carrier and in trial 2 she testified for the state. I guess because of the timing there could be more implication that it could have been JY's SUV. There is no way TT and CB were there on Birchleaf at the same time.

No, Cindy Beaver saw Travis Branch's van, not Terry Tiller.
Travis Branch is the News Observer delivery person and delivered papers between 3-5 am..and sometimes as late as 5:30 am. He has a white van, no markings .

 

[JusticeFever]

BTW, whoever said they wish we could have the trial transcripts is pure genius. I wish we did too.
Only, can you imagine what they would cost!!

 

[JusticeFever]

Here is the link to Travis Branch's testimony......4 minutes and 29 seconds.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9765981/



PS: Terry Tiller never drove a white van

 

[sunshine05]

This is what is very interesting. On top of one of the search warrants Terry Tiller gives the time of 4-5 am.........the defense called her in the first trial.......but she thought the time
was more like 3:00- 4:00 am, so in the 2nd trial , the state called her......thats why you could not find her.

This is a great example of confirmation bias. The State only called the witness who fit their timeline - Terry Tiller, though you are correct that she initially stated she saw the light SUV at 4-5AM --- at a time that excludes JY 100%.

So we have three witnesses who reported seeing a light SUV that morning anywhere from 3-7AM and the State calls the only one who reported it at 3-4 (though not initially)! This is how they operate --- stitch together a story to make it fit with their theory. If it doesn't fit, simply ignore it.

 

[MyBelle]

The witness has a verified faulty memory. That was diagnosed when she was a child, and there has been no improvement. The brain injury was permanent. She recalled seeing a man that was 5 feet tall, she agreed with investigators that the 5 foot tall man looked like Jason. She added other details to help bolster her story, but nothing she said could be verified ... most likely because none of it was a true memory.

Eight years later, everyone's memory fades. If the ability to lay down memory was faulty to begin with, then eight years later tells me that there's very little, if anything, of the memory left. That's my opinion, of course. I suspect that with a little plodding, the witness will be encouraged to remember when the police visited her at the gas station and when she last testified in court, but that's not a memory of Jason.

Although it would be cruel, if I were the defense, I would absolutely destroy the witness and lay it at the feet of the prosecution for attempting to present someone like that as a reliable witness ... for attempting to put someone in prison for life on the basis of a mixed up statement from an unreliable witness.

I think the defense will file the same motions about Gracie that they did first time around, which is before they were aware of her brain injury. The appellate court noted they didn't find out about it until before the second trial.

JMO

The defense wants the judge to suppress testimony from a convenience store clerk who said Young bought gas from her in King, N.C. around 5:30 a.m. when investigators believe Michelle was killed. Investigators said Gracie Bailey told them Jason Young was irate, cussed at her and then threw a $20 bill at her.

Young said he was sleeping at that time in a hotel room in Hillsville, Va., which is about an hour away.

The defense questions Bailey's background saying she's had problems with drugs and alcohol.

Court will reconvene at 10 a.m. Friday when the judge is expected to hear from the store clerk before making a ruling.

- See more at: http://coastalnc.twcnews.com/conten...guilty-to-wife-s-murder/#sthash.fUAuISyS.dpuf

 

[MyBelle]

Listening to the trial, I am embarrassed for the State. Reminds me of the way I felt about the Zimmerman case.

They just keep harping on the fact that he did not talk to anyone. Such a joke.

I wonder how the new prosecutor is going to feel about it. She's got to overcome some high profile "black marks" on the team she's about to lead.

It's not much of a victory if you do it by cheating or getting your pal, an old Judge to 'wink, wink' look the other way.

JMO, of course.

 

[Nymeria]

Thanks, but we also know JY called MF from Cracker Barrel, so I am thinking he didn't have her number on his cell, maybe he had her number just at home or on their land line.

No idea if he knew he did or did not have the other printout with him.

Makes no difference to the case but I find this odd.
MF was his babysitter, marriage counselor, and most important SIL (closest relative in terms of geography also, yes?).
Why would he not have her number programmed into his phone?


This seems familiar, if I have asked this before please excuse my forgetfulness :blushing:

 

[otto]

I think the defense will file the same motions about Gracie that they did first time around, which is before they were aware of her brain injury. The appellate court noted they didn't find out about it until before the second trial.

JMO

The defense wants the judge to suppress testimony from a convenience store clerk who said Young bought gas from her in King, N.C. around 5:30 a.m. when investigators believe Michelle was killed. Investigators said Gracie Bailey told them Jason Young was irate, cussed at her and then threw a $20 bill at her.

Young said he was sleeping at that time in a hotel room in Hillsville, Va., which is about an hour away.

The defense questions Bailey's background saying she's had problems with drugs and alcohol.

Court will reconvene at 10 a.m. Friday when the judge is expected to hear from the store clerk before making a ruling.

- See more at: http://coastalnc.twcnews.com/conten...guilty-to-wife-s-murder/#sthash.fUAuISyS.dpuf

The prosecutor has a responsibility to present reliable witnesses during trial, and any jury will assume that witnesses that testify are deemed reliable. Drugs and alcohol abuse, and a severe brain injury that interferes with memory, make this witness unreliable.

Would any of the prosecutors want someone with memory issues testifying about what they did or said? I suspect that they would immediately dismiss someone like that as unreliable ... so why is someone like that testifying on behalf of prosecutors during a murder trial?

 

[Nymeria]

Excellent question.

Comparing this to evidence in the Arias trial is showing desperation IMO.

Minor did not compare the evidence, he compared the actions of murderers (or accused murderers).
No desperation there, he was just making a point. IMO

 

[otto]

I wonder how the new prosecutor is going to feel about it. She's got to overcome some high profile "black marks" on the team she's about to lead.

It's not much of a victory if you do it by cheating or getting your pal, an old Judge to 'wink, wink' look the other way.

JMO, of course.

Will the next jury be impartial, or will they go into the trial knowing that there was a mistrial with 8-4 not guilty and an appealed conviction, or will they be told there was a mistrial and an appeal?

 

[otto]

Makes no difference to the case but I find this odd.
MF was his babysitter, marriage counselor, and most important SIL (closest relative in terms of geography also, yes?).
Why would he not have her number programmed into his phone?


This seems familiar, if I have asked this before please excuse my forgetfulness :blushing:

It should have been in his phone, but maybe she hadn't been babysitting or counselling for a year and he had changed phones. Was her number written on his Hillsville map?

 

[otto]

Minor did not compare the evidence, he compared the actions of murderers (or accused murderers).
No desperation there, he was just making a point. IMO

And ... there is a better alignment between Jason Young and Chistopher Porco than Young and Arias. For example, if we have Porco, Young, and Arias, which two have more in common ... in terms of actions?

Porco was convicted, but there was more evidence of his travels than a gas station attendant with verified brain damage and subsequent memory deficiency.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

We dont know. We only know of the general description Jason gave us, and I dont believe what he says without corroboration or some indication of reliability. According to Jason, he parked somewhere on the side of the building near the emergency exit. It doesn't explain why he went to the farthest exit to smoke a cigar - oh, right, he needed a paper to read in the freezing gusting wind and the cigar was in his car (even though the defense could produce no witness who had ever seen Jason smoke a cigar).

We could go round and round on every detail of Jason's story and there are those who will accept it as truthful simply because it is cannot be proved to be impossible. But, Im sorry, his story is nothing more than a patchwork of cobbled excuses and explanations for each bit of incriminating evidence, and it just does not hold together as a believable story - especially since he came out with it for the first time 3 years after the crime and after having carefully considered the states evidence.

Pat Young revealed that the family found a cigar humidor when they cleaned out the Young home after the murder.

The testimony bolstered part of her son's alibi in which he testified that, after being seen on hotel security video shortly before midnight on Nov. 2, that he went outside to smoke a cigar.


Read more at http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10788694/#LUBqRTxhJhkoFg8p.99

I agree no one in the article said he smoked cigars but he did have some, I'm pretty sure in his testimony, MY bought them for him.

BTW, No one would call me a smoker but I have smoked on very rare occasions over the years and a few cigars too.

 

[SStarr33]

Yes, that is correct, but the problem to me is CB saw this at 5:30 and TT the NYT lady was there at 3-3;30.
I could be wrong but do not think TT testified in trial 2.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9758853/
This is the link of TT in trial 1 and I have searched archives for trial 2 and can not find that the DT called her.. My opinion is perhaps because of the timing the DT did not use her in trial 2

Why is it a problem that TT saw the lights on at 330 and CB saw them at 530? Here is TTs testimony at retrial:

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10710804/

ETA, NM, I see you found it above. And I also see the State got TT to change her timeline so it fits their timeline.

Unreal.

 

[SStarr33]

This is a great example of confirmation bias. The State only called the witness who fit their timeline - Terry Tiller, though you are correct that she initially stated she saw the light SUV at 4-5AM --- at a time that excludes JY 100%.

So we have three witnesses who reported seeing a light SUV that morning anywhere from 3-7AM and the State calls the only one who reported it at 3-4 (though not initially)! This is how they operate --- stitch together a story to make it fit with their theory. If it doesn't fit, simply ignore it.

It really is sickening. The prosecution should be required to call witnesses whether they fit their theory or not. After all, they are supposed to be after the truth.

 

[SStarr33]

BTW, whoever said they wish we could have the trial transcripts is pure genius. I wish we did too.
Only, can you imagine what they would cost!!

I will email the clerk and see how much they cost.