Jason Young to get new trial #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

People smoke when it is windy every minute of every day.

Did his mom work for Quick Set and get the humidor there? I thought she was a teacher.

Do people get to choose which side they are called by as a witness?
 
Does the clump of hair and the cigarette butts found that do not match JYs DNA bother you at all?

No, since we dont have any information about whose they are. If the DNA matched the recently paroled killer down the street, then we have something to talk about.
 
People smoke when it is windy every minute of every day.

Did his mom work for Quick Set and get the humidor there? I thought she was a teacher.

Do people get to choose which side they are called by as a witness?

But Jason Young doesnt.

Although it may be within the realm of all remote possibilities that Jason chose that particular night to take up cigar smoking in the cold in the middle of the night and right outside the hotel door where the security camera was unplugged at the same time -- it doesnt mean that we are obliged to accept it as the truth and abandon all reason and sense in the process.

Seriously though, I would really like to understand why you and others accept these explanations as the unquestionable truth. Why is that believable to you, considering Jasons history of lying and cheating and his obviously strong motive to say whatever necessary to keep himself out of prison? Im not criticizing or insulting you or anyone else - I would just like to understand your thinking on this.
 
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.


I hope you can find a link if this is true because I certainly do not remember a single witness saying they had seen Jason smoke a cigar. Thanks.
 
Investigators claimed that had a long, long list of questions that accumulated over the years. Investigators were desperate for answers from Jason. Their desperation for answers led to criticisms of Jason's silence in the media. Holt had her opportunity to ask each and every one of those questions, but when the time came, she had nothing to say. Therefore, I think that investigators never had any questions. They were simply looking for any excuse to criticize Jason.

You dont ask investigative questions when the defendant, after three years, tells his story for the very first time during his criminal trial. Thats just an invitation for Jason to hold forth with more ridiculous excuses and explanations.

The investigation was concluded and Jason was the one and only suspect. The time to help investigators solve the murder would have been during the investigation.
 
You dont ask investigative questions when the defendant, after three years, tells his story for the very first time during his criminal trial. Thats just an invitation for Jason to hold forth with more ridiculous excuses and explanations.

The investigation was concluded and Jason was the one and only suspect. The time to help investigators solve the murder would have been during the investigation.

I don't believe that Jason could help anyone solve a murder. He could answer questions about Michelle's life and friends, and he could tell investigators whether anything in the house was moved or missing, but Meredith was also able to answer those questions. What exactly did investigators want to ask Jason all those years?
 
You dont ask investigative questions when the defendant, after three years, tells his story for the very first time during his criminal trial. Thats just an invitation for Jason to hold forth with more ridiculous excuses and explanations.

The investigation was concluded and Jason was the one and only suspect. The time to help investigators solve the murder would have been during the investigation.

Probably the biggest mistake. Everything JY did or didn't do is suspect from that moment, even Mother Theresa could have looked guilty under close scrutiny. :)

JY said when asked, that he loved his wife and was looking forward to the birth of their baby son. I believed him.
I just can't find a motive. They were situated well financially as JY said, for people of their age. He didn't have plans to run off with another woman, he seemed to enjoy the status quo in his marriage, he did what he liked. Not great husband material but also not necessarily a killer.
 
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.

He didn't need a friend to verify if he ever smoked a cigar. He bought it, had a receipt for it and testified he smoked it. No witness was with him. The entire cigar line of questioning is how desperate and ridiculous the prosecution became.

It was a murder trial and instead of proving he was guilty of murder, they fixated on tedious, irrelevant testimony about a random rock, a camera that had somebody else's prints on it and a cigar that he owned. None of it was evidence of murder because they relied on the civil cases to convict him of murder. What a laughing stock. No wonder the prosecutor retired.

Just my opinion.

JMO
 
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

You are very right. I was shocked that the boss publicly made a derogatory personal comment. That's the stuff EEOC complaints are made and union grievances are filed. Perhaps next trial she will refer to him as a sexist pig and see how it goes over with the jury.

JMO
 
I don't believe that Jason could help anyone solve a murder. He could answer questions about Michelle's life and friends, and he could tell investigators whether anything in the house was moved or missing, but Meredith was also able to answer those questions. What exactly did investigators want to ask Jason all those years?

I agree. Even the suggestion they wanted him to come to the crime scene to see what was stolen is totally ridiculous because it was a sealed crime scene of a homicide.

It's a myth that an innocent party can help solve a murder or that lack of cooperation equates with guilt. Jenna Nielsen's murder remains unsolved and her husband totally cooperated. Scott Peterson cooperated and he was convicted.

JMO
 
I agree. Even the suggestion they wanted him to come to the crime scene to see what was stolen is totally ridiculous because it was a sealed crime scene of a homicide.

It's a myth that an innocent party can help solve a murder or that lack of cooperation equates with guilt. Jenna Nielsen's murder remains unsolved and her husband totally cooperated. Scott Peterson cooperated and he was convicted.

JMO

Exactly. Investigators wanted Jason to answer questions for one reason: they wanted to pin him to a story. That's what investigators do. It's absurd to believe that investigators want persons of interest to answer questions because the person of interest is helping police solve a murder.

Investigators solve murders, not persons of interest, not the general public.
 
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.

If either cops or workmen left the butts, the prosecution would have called them to testify. The fact they didn't shows how significant they are to Jason's defense.

People who smoke an occasional cigar don't have to be cigarette smokers also. They are two totally different tobacco products as is pipe smoking or chewing tobacco.

JMO
 
The pseudonym “Emily” is used to protect the identity of the child involved in this case.


Meredith complied with Defendant's requests and entered the Youngs' home through the garage door, which was broken, and then through the unlocked kitchen door to the home's mudroom. -

Ok, we have point of entry for an intruder without force, known or unknown to MY.

A jewelry box in the master bedroom had two drawers removed, and DNA testing showed four markers that did not include Defendant or Michelle's DNA. Meredith testified that Michelle “didn't really have a lot of fancy jewelry” except her wedding and engagement rings, and that she “always wore” her wedding and engagement rings. Michelle's wedding and engagement rings were both missing from her body when she was found and the rings were not recovered. Additional unidentified fingerprints were found in the house. Investigators found no signs of forced entry.


Isn't this proof someone else rifled through MY's jewelry box? Unidentified fingerprints??

Printouts from eBay concerning purses were found on an office printer with three fingerprints; one matched Defendant and two others remain unidentified. Forensic analyst Beth Whitney of the CCBI (“Ms.Whitney”) also said Internet searches for purses were made between 7:05 p.m. and 7:23 p.m. on 2 November 2006. Ms. Whitney testified that MapQuest inquiries for directions between Raleigh and Clintwood, Virginia, were also made that evening, as well as e-mail logins to Defendant's personal email account. Ms. Whitney also found that, at an undetermined time, Internet searches were made on the Youngs' home computer for “anatomy of a knockout,” “head trauma blackout,” “head blow knockout,” and “head trauma.”

Come on Ms Whitney, why is there no time of this search?!
JY's response -
Defendant also made internet searches on his home computer for head trauma and anatomy of a knockout, which he said he made after being the “first responder” to a car accident where a person was knocked out.

Also, the unknown fingerprints again?!

Ms. Schaad picked up dinner on the way to the Youngs' house and invited Defendant to eat. Defendant said he planned to stop at the Cracker Barrel in Greensboro to have dinner, drive three hours to Galax to spend the evening, and then drive two hours the next morning to a 10:30 meeting.

The time is wrong, could be a mistake on her part. If JY did say that time not sure why he would later say he was late for the meeting? Probably means nothing.

Defendant expected his father-in-law to visit, and Defendant had spent the afternoon cleaning the yard in anticipation of his arrival. Defendant's father-in-law called and cancelled his visit that evening.

JY was expecting dad in law to arrive next day, made preparations. Is the state saying JY wanted him to discover the body and rescue the child? So when he cancelled, JY had to come up with another excuse for a person to drop by, being MF?

Ms. Schaad said she felt like the two were being watched and asked Michelle to walk her to her vehicle before she left that evening.

Is Ms Schaad prone to 'heightened feelings of fear to her surroundings' or paranoia? Is this unusual for her?

The camera worked properly from 5:50 a.m. until 6:34 a.m., but at 6:35 a.m., the camera was pointed at the ceiling. Mr. Goad put the camera back in position and focused it on the bottom of the stairs at 6:38 a.m.

From the state's perspective, JY entered through that doorway precisely at 6.35am as camera worked prior till 6.34am.

So JY left the hotel sometime after 12am, drove home, and around 3 am, viciously murdered his wife, cleaned his daughter up, washed and dried her pj's and redressed her? Emily wears diapers, but she had no urine or faeces in her pj's or bed and was wearing no diapers when found, so did Emily use the toilet between 3am and 1pm when she was discovered by MF or was she drugged and slept all that time? Was Emily toilet trained?

Defendant was thirty minutes late to his 10:00 a.m. sales call in Clintwood, Virginia.


Yet Schaad claimed JY said his appointment was at 10.30am, so he wasn't 'late', he had the time wrong. Noted earlier, probably not important.

Ms. Calhoun testified that Defendant came into the store and cursed at her because the pumps were not on, threw $20 at her, pumped $15 of gas and drove off without returning for change. Store records showed several gas and in-store purchases between 5:00 a.m. and 5:40 a.m., including a $15 gas purchase at 5:27 a.m. and a $20 gas purchase at 5:36 a.m.

2 things - why would JY bring attention to himself when he is in the process of committing the perfect murder?

There is no way JY could have arrived at hotel at 6.35 am if the state wants us to believe he moved the camera? The drive takes 1 and 1/2 hours. So if it was JY then he didn't move the camera, someone else did, and JY arrived later at the hotel. Or he did move the camera at that time but it wasn't him who purchased the gas? Has to be one or the other.

Officers began to question Meredith and friends of the Youngs about possible marital problems. After the questioning, Defendant's friends Josh Dalton and Ryan Schaad suggested he not speak to police until he retained counsel. On counsel's advice, Defendant never answered any questions from law enforcement or spoke about Michelle's death with friends or family.

We can assume JY took this advice very seriously. He knew he was the prime suspect and his goose was cooked. JY would have been very troubled.

Later in the evening, Defendant and Linda were alone in the home, watching Emily, and Linda said Defendant told her that his lawyer said he could not talk to anyone and that he was “going to take a hit on the house.”

OK, defendant worried about losing the home, he had a child to care for. This was a 2 income household.

Pat and Defendant's family later packed up the Youngs' home two months after Michelle's death and found a cigar humidor that said “Quick Set” on the exterior. Defendant previously sold Quick Set locks. A credit card purchase was made on a credit card in Michelle's name at a Tampa, Florida store called “Cigars by Antonio .”

Explanation for the cigars.

Defendant introduced testimony of a newspaper deliveryman who drove by the Youngs' home at 5108 Birchleaf Drive around 3:50 a.m., noticed that nothing seemed unusual, and did not see a vehicle.


And then over an hour later - assailant left the scene and then returned later?

A neighbor, Cynthia Beaver (“Ms.Beaver”), testified that she passed by the Youngs' home between 5:20 and 5:30 a.m. and saw that the home's lights and driveway lights were on, and that there was a light-colored “soccer-mom car” with its lights on and placed at the edge of the driveway. Ms. Beaver said a white male was in the driver's seat and another person was in the passenger's seat, who may have been a female. Another neighbor, Fay Hinsley, said she saw an empty S.U.V. at the edge of the driveway between 6 and 6:30 a.m.

It is recorded that JY made several calls on the way to Clintwood, many could have been drop outs. JY has been noted to be on his phone constantly when travelling on the road, so not unusual.

Printouts from eBay concerning purses were found on an office printer with three fingerprints; one matched Defendant and two others remain unidentified. Forensic analyst Beth Whitney of the CCBI (“Ms.Whitney”) also said Internet searches for purses were made between 7:05 p.m. and 7:23 p.m. on 2 November 2006. Ms. Whitney testified that MapQuest inquiries for directions between Raleigh and Clintwood, Virginia, were also made that evening, as well as e-mail logins to Defendant's personal email account. Ms. Whitney also found that, at an undetermined time, Internet searches were made on the Youngs' home computer for “anatomy of a knockout,” “head trauma blackout,” “head blow knockout,” and “head trauma.”

Come on Ms Whitney, why is there no time of this search?!
JY's response -
Defendant also made internet searches on his home computer for head trauma and anatomy of a knockout, which he said he made after being the “first responder” to a car accident where a person was knocked out.

Ms. Schaad picked up dinner on the way to the Youngs' house and invited Defendant to eat. Defendant said he planned to stop at the Cracker Barrel in Greensboro to have dinner, drive three hours to Galax to spend the evening, and then drive two hours the next morning to a 10:30 meeting.

The time is wrong, could be a mistake on her part. If JY did say that time not sure why he would later say he was late for the meeting? Probably means nothing.

Defendant expected his father-in-law to visit, and Defendant had spent the afternoon cleaning the yard in anticipation of his arrival. Defendant's father-in-law called and cancelled his visit that evening.


JY was expecting dad in law to arrive next day, made preparations. Is the state saying JY wanted him to discover the body and rescue the child? So when he cancelled, JY had to come up with another excuse for a person to drop by, being MF?

Ms. Schaad said she felt like the two were being watched and asked Michelle to walk her to her vehicle before she left that evening.

Is Ms Schaad prone to 'heightened feelings of fear to her surroundings' or paranoia? Is this unusual for her?

The camera worked properly from 5:50 a.m. until 6:34 a.m., but at 6:35 a.m., the camera was pointed at the ceiling. Mr. Goad put the camera back in position and focused it on the bottom of the stairs at 6:38 a.m.

From the state's perspective, JY entered through that doorway precisely at 6.35am as camera worked prior till 6.34am.

So JY left the hotel sometime after 12am, drove home, and around 3 am, viciously murdered his wife, cleaned his daughter up, washed and dried her pj's and redressed her? Emily wears diapers, but she had no urine or faeces in her pj's or bed and was wearing no diapers when found, so did Emily use the toilet between 3am and 1pm when she was discovered by MF or was she drugged and slept all that time?

Defendant was thirty minutes late to his 10:00 a.m. sales call in Clintwood, Virginia.


Yet Schaad claimed JY said his appointment was at 10.30am, so he wasn't 'late', he had the time wrong. Noted earlier, probably not important.

Ms. Calhoun testified that Defendant came into the store and cursed at her because the pumps were not on, threw $20 at her, pumped $15 of gas and drove off without returning for change. Store records showed several gas and in-store purchases between 5:00 a.m. and 5:40 a.m., including a $15 gas purchase at 5:27 a.m. and a $20 gas purchase at 5:36 a.m.

2 things - why would JY bring attention to himself when he is in the process of committing the perfect murder?

There is no way JY could have arrived at hotel at 6.35 am if the state wants us to believe he moved the camera? The drive takes 1 and 1/2 hours. So if it was JY then he didn't move the camera, someone else did, and JY arrived later at the hotel. Or he did move the camera at that time but it wasn't him who purchased the gas? Has to be one or the other.

Officers began to question Meredith and friends of the Youngs about possible marital problems. After the questioning, Defendant's friends Josh Dalton and Ryan Schaad suggested he not speak to police until he retained counsel. On counsel's advice, Defendant never answered any questions from law enforcement or spoke about Michelle's death with friends or family.

We can assume JY took this advice very seriously. He knew he was the prime suspect and his goose was cooked. JY would have been very troubled.

Later in the evening, Defendant and Linda were alone in the home, watching Emily, and Linda said Defendant told her that his lawyer said he could not talk to anyone and that he was “going to take a hit on the house.”

OK, defendant worried about losing the home, he has a child to care for. This was a 2 income household.

Pat and Defendant's family later packed up the Youngs' home two months after Michelle's death and found a cigar humidor that said “Quick Set” on the exterior. Defendant previously sold Quick Set locks. A credit card purchase was made on a credit card in Michelle's name at a Tampa, Florida store called “Cigars by Antonio .”

Explanation for the cigars.

Defendant introduced testimony of a newspaper deliveryman who drove by the Youngs' home at 5108 Birchleaf Drive around 3:50 a.m., noticed that nothing seemed unusual, and did not see a vehicle.


BUT THEN

A neighbor, Cynthia Beaver (“Ms.Beaver”), testified that she passed by the Youngs' home between 5:20 and 5:30 a.m. and saw that the home's lights and driveway lights were on, and that there was a light-colored “soccer-mom car” with its lights on and placed at the edge of the driveway. Ms. Beaver said a white male was in the driver's seat and another person was in the passenger's seat, who may have been a female. Another neighbor, Fay Hinsley, said she saw an empty S.U.V. at the edge of the driveway between 6 and 6:30 a.m.

Assailents could have left crime scene and returned later for some reason?



Also, the state says JY made several short calls on the way to Clintwood, many could have been drop outs, state said he was in a panic and yet JY was constantly on phone when travelling on the road, so not unusual.

MOO


See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1662955.html#sthash.hjBwhzOp.dpuf
 
^^^Sorry for the long post, lol, this case intrigues me no end. :blushing:
 
Wait. The garage door was broken and people are still saying there was no evidence of forced entry?

I have been meaning to ask about that half way open garage door--unreal.

BTW, the french door in the den was found unlocked when Agent Galloway did his crime scene video.
 
Wait. The garage door was broken and people are still saying there was no evidence of forced entry?

I have been meaning to ask about that half way open garage door--unreal.

BTW, the french door in the den was found unlocked when Agent Galloway did his crime scene video.

The garage door was broken, and they didn't lock the door to the mud room. I don't lock the door to my mud room, and if my garage door was broken, I might forget to lock it.

I'll admit to this now because I'm sure any statute of limitations on B&Es I committed 15+ years ago has run out. We would drive around at night and look for garage doors that were open. People usually leave that door unlocked. People usually come home, set their wallet or purse down on the nearest counter and leave it there. In and out in less than 5 seconds. We'd also steal people's gas cans too because running out of gas was a common occurrence when all our money went to other things.

Maybe it was a botched robbery? Maybe the killer(s) didn't have it in them to kill a little girl?

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
 
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.

There is no new prosecutor yet. They had the primaries but the election itself is in Nov. They only have an interim DA right now, a judge. However, if Lorren Freeman does win the DA election in the fall and she decides to go forward and prosecute JY, will she then get the title of newest "most corrupt DA?"
 
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.

In order to win, he needs to hire a private attorney. No more public defenders. They do the best they can with limited resources, but it is not the same. And a female might be best.

His mom needs to sell some of her land.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
288
Total visitors
461

Forum statistics

Threads
609,198
Messages
18,250,692
Members
234,557
Latest member
hndleitner
Back
Top