Jason Young to get new trial #3

[citygirl]

You keep saying no proof, no proof, but I and 16 jurors disagree.

As far as postulating on what's typical - I was simply responding in kind to a post that claimed that it's not typical to carry a humidor in the car.

Look, I'm very well aware that every single piece of evidence can be met with an explanation or rationalization or excuse. We all saw Jason do this in his second trial when he tried to account for every bit of minutiae presented I the states case in chief. Of course one can ALWAYS come up with some wild a$$ explanation about every particle of dust in the mountain of circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't mean those explanations are believable.

It's not like Jason has a history and reputation for honesty and integrity. He has a history of lying and cheating and sneaking around in order to do exactly as he pleases, without burdening himself with any concerns for the effects of his behavior on anyone else. Why exactly would anyone believe him without corroboration?

BBM. I wouldn't and I don't. You just hit the nail on the head. Who is around to corroborate anything he says other than his family? His mother got flustered on the stand on cross examination. I wouldn't want to be in that position but it was a window into the way she thinks. And I do think she would protect her son at any cost.
Thanks for all your insightful posts.

 

[citygirl]

But there's no evidence that he lied at trial about anything. We must give people accused of something the benefit of the doubt unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. There is not. It is startling to me that so many are quick to convict on the basis of "could haves". It is not supposed to work that way. How would you feel if you were convicted of murder because the jurors didn't believe you smoked a cigar? This is very serious stuff....to accuse someone of something and stitch together a series of events that in no way point to the person. We've been through it over and over and I can't understand how one could possibly attribute a tampered camera to a person when someone else's prints and DNA were found on the camera. It takes my breath away that this line of thinking exists.

So what is the scenario? He went to his room and changed his shirt in preparation for the trip back to Raleigh (didn't change because it's cold outside), then goes to the front desk so he can be seen (part of the alibi) then what? He didn't even have to say that he went out to smoke, did he? I mean, he sat through the whole trial and no shot of him stepping outside is seen. Could it be....maybe...that he was simply being honest?

He was found guilty by a jury. Are you saying he was convicted on "could haves"? The only thing that is disallowed in the next trial is mentioning the civil suit. That's it! Everything else comes in.

 

[citygirl]

JY also had receipts for cigars from before the murder. So either he had a time machine and went back in time to purchase cigars, or he's such a criminal mastermind, that he occasionally purchased cigars so that years later he could use smoking a cigar as an alibi when his wife is murdered.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

He had receipts from years ago? Why would he save them? I'm not saying he held on to them to support his alibi but why hang onto them? They could have easily been purchased as gifts for a new father couldn't they? One of their friends maybe?

 

[citygirl]

Did the State do the math on the gas that was remaining in the car to determine if it was the correct amount given where JY had traveled?

Don't hold me to this but I think both sides presented their mileage analysis.

 

[citygirl]

Does the clump of hair and the cigarette butts found that do not match JYs DNA bother you at all?

Not sure it was a clump of hair. The hair found in MY's hand belonged to her. The butts don't concern me. Could have been workmen or cops.

 

[sunshine05]

Why didn't the defense do it? Math challenged?

They did at both trials during closing arguments. This is from trial 1 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--Olb3pkoLw

 

[sunshine05]

If he did go outside on a cold windy midnight to read the paper and smoke a cigar( DT could not produce one witness to ever say they saw JY smoke a cigar)
why didn't he then take the paper back up to his room and trash it after he smoked the cigar or toss it in a can by the exit door. I think he took that newspaper and headed right back to Raleigh. Why else would he have had that paper in his car?

It is my understanding that he had Friday's paper in the car, which he would have picked up from his doorknob that morning.

I am going to see if I can find it. I know I saw reference that one of his friends did verify that he smoked cigars.

 

[sunshine05]

So your witness 1 must be TT the NYT lady who yes when cross examined agreed her time there was more like 3-3:30 and in trial 2 was called by the state
Your witness 2 is CB who was described by her boss as a busy body always getting into other employees business and at one time falsely accused a o-worker of something they did not do. The boss stated he had to constantly intervene.
Your witness 3 FH a witty sweet older citizen who was confused and when cross examined said she was never on Birchleaf that morning. She said that was not the route she took.

So as I said in a previous post if Gracie's account is questionable these 3 witnesses do not help DT

The State had to try to discredit all of them. It is a fact that Cindy was actually persuaded to contact police by the very witness who labeled her a "busybody". Disgraceful for prosecutors to call him! To suggest that she called them because she wanted "in on the action" is absurd. I thought her testimony was 100% credible.

TT did initially tell police 4-5, but fine 3-4. It still leaves little time for JY to accomplish everything and get back if we are going to cherry pick the one witness and ignore the other two (I could never do that as a juror).

The older lady - it's in the police notes and she took Spivey directly to the Young's home when he visited her about what she saw. She was a bit senile at trial but of course the memory is always better closest to the event and she was certain in 11/06 that it was the right house.

 

[sunshine05]

I do not believe the DT had one witness to say JY occasionally smoked a cigar. If you have a link that proves me wrong then Okay.
The door in fact did not need to stay open as once it was 6:30 you could get back in without a keycard.

I was referring to his hotel room door.

 

[sunshine05]

He was found guilty by a jury. Are you saying he was convicted on "could haves"? The only thing that is disallowed in the next trial is mentioning the civil suit. That's it! Everything else comes in.

Most certainly, yes.

I am very confident that he will be acquitted if/when they try him again.

Yes, everything will be in except for the civil suits, including anything new the defense wishes to present.

 

[sunshine05]

Also, regarding CB being a "busybody" by inserting herself into this case, she didn't even want to contact police because initially they were only interested in hearing from people who saw something earlier that morning. When they extended the time, she contacted them at the insistence of her boss. Her recollection and details are clear. In fact, because the investigators were bullying her, she wanted out of it all together. That's a tactic we want our public officials to use to "win" cases, or do we want the truth?

See, this is why people don't want to get involved. Look at the way she was treated and even today has to deal with people knowing her as a busybody. Just imagine what that must feel like. She's trying to help by sharing what she saw and she's attacked for it and continues to be attacked. I think it's a scummy tactic by prosecutors to have attacked a witness's character like this. Disgusting. And this IS the reason people who may see things that are helpful just keep their mouths shut rather than deal with the police.

http://youtu.be/Q2tzzpdZ7mc

 

[SStarr33]

He had receipts from years ago? Why would he save them? I'm not saying he held on to them to support his alibi but why hang onto them? They could have easily been purchased as gifts for a new father couldn't they? One of their friends maybe?

It was on the credit card bill.

And it is the job of the prosecution to prove the cigars were bought as a gift.

 

[SStarr33]

The State had to try to discredit all of them. It is a fact that Cindy was actually persuaded to contact police by the very witness who labeled her a "busybody". Disgraceful for prosecutors to call him! To suggest that she called them because she wanted "in on the action" is absurd. I thought her testimony was 100% credible.

TT did initially tell police 4-5, but fine 3-4. It still leaves little time for JY to accomplish everything and get back if we are going to cherry pick the one witness and ignore the other two (I could never do that as a juror).

The older lady - it's in the police notes and she took Spivey directly to the Young's home when he visited her about what she saw. She was a bit senile at trial but of course the memory is always better closest to the event and she was certain in 11/06 that it was the right house.

Her boss was ex LE.

Shocking, right?

 

[citygirl]

It was on the credit card bill.

And it is the job of the prosecution to prove the cigars were bought as a gift.

From years ago? The defense presented this?

 

[SStarr33]

Not sure it was a clump of hair. The hair found in MY's hand belonged to her. The butts don't concern me. Could have been workmen or cops.

Which workman did they have at their house? Not all of the hair belonged to MY. I highly doubt that cops would leave butts at a crime scene.

 

[SStarr33]

But remember, the humidor was found by JY's family and this info was presented in his trial. This is after JY saw all the evidence and concocted his version of events. Mom deserves a big thanks for that one. :wink:

The humidor was a promotional item from Quick Set, where he used to work.

 

[SStarr33]

If he did go outside on a cold windy midnight to read the paper and smoke a cigar( DT could not produce one witness to ever say they saw JY smoke a cigar)
why didn't he then take the paper back up to his room and trash it after he smoked the cigar or toss it in a can by the exit door. I think he took that newspaper and headed right back to Raleigh. Why else would he have had that paper in his car?

Because he is a slob as evidenced by his car.

 

[SStarr33]

From years ago? The defense presented this?

Cigars by Antonio in Tampa FL

 

[pomegranate]

Cigars by Antonio in Tampa FL

Do you have a link for info about JY's previous cigar purchases? I tried to find something but only found discussion about witnesses saying he didn't like smoke and his statement for insurance that he hadn't smoked in the previous year.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10788694/

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Boodles]

Do you have a link for info about JY's previous cigar purchases? I tried to find something but only found discussion about witnesses saying he didn't like smoke and his statement for insurance that he hadn't smoked in the previous year.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10788694/

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It really doesn't matter. He saw all the evidence: every video, still shot, time stamps, etc. and then and only then did he concoct his story. The humidor actually could have been in his belongings and they tied it into his version. Or mama could have had one laying around and they used it to fabricate a smoke-in-the-wind story. It's neither here nor there. Josh never once saw him smoke a cigar, and Josh started out as a defense witness. I don't believe much of what JY said about that night. It just didn't make any sense.