Jason Young to get new trial #4

[JusticeFever]

It starts getting dark at 9 PM in November?????? LAWD!!! But she also said her shift was 12 to 7... So did she come in an hr early???? First time she says he hit the button 5 or 6 times to get her to turn the pump on.... 2nd time she said 3.....

Yes, I caught this as well, it is confusing about her shift, sometimes it was stated at 12am-8 am, others at 11pm-7am*

At the timestamp 3:45 she says the pumps are cut off at 9M when it starts getting dark.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/

I will post the other one where she says she cuts the pumps off when she comes to work at 11M.

Hey, I missed the buzzer count part, thanks SG!!

*Tiki Ingram, her boss, says her shift was midnite to 8:am.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Yes, I caught this as well, it is confusing about her shift, sometimes it was stated at 12am-8 am, others at 11pm-7am*

At the timestamp 3:45 she says the pumps are cut off at 9M when it starts getting dark.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910/

I will post the other one where she says she cuts the pumps off when she comes to work at 11M.

Hey, I missed the buzzer count part, thanks SG!!

*Tiki Ingram, her boss, says her shift was midnite to 8:am.

You're welcome... I need to watch it again because hubby came in so I turned it off.... Im wanting to find out more about the McDonald workers.... Most McDonalds open around 5:30 to serve... But wouldnt they open earlier to start breakfast prep.. You cant open at 5:30 with no food....

 

[JusticeFever]

Here is the timestamp for Trial 2......8:55 mark, she says the pumps are usually turned off at 11M and Becky Holt asks her if she was the one who usually did it, and she says Yes.........http:www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10705156/

This makes no sense.....wouldn't it be more likely the pumps would be turned off when it becomes dark, and her boss says her shift started at midnight!!!
Tiki Ingram:
http:www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9723180/ 4:15timestamp

Ms. Ingram says she pulled all the receipts from that shift and that shift started at 12am, not 11M....

 

[JusticeFever]

You're welcome... I need to watch it again because hubby came in so I turned it off.... Im wanting to find out more about the McDonald workers.... Most McDonalds open around to serve... But wouldnt they open earlier to start breakfast prep.. You cant open at 5:30 with no food....

The whole McDonalds thing is another story, now we have even more people and employees arriving at the same time Jason is making his big scene! I didn't know that it was attached to 4 Brothers..(my fault)
Then the state tries to add to this extra little scenario by mentioning trash dumpsters behind McDonald's. like Jason was going to drive all the way from Raleigh to King with anything implicating him being at Birchleaf!! Huh?
Did you know Gracie only worked there a few months, even that part of her testimony is confusing. Becky Holt tries to say longer, and Gracie corrects her.
She says McDonalds closed around 11:30 pm, how would she know that if her shift
ended at 11? How did LE even find her on a different shift?
Wouldn't they be canvassing the gas stations at the same time Jason would have been there? (5:30am)

 

[oenophile]

Slightly changing topics here, but what did people think of the Defense opening statement? Personally, I disliked it intensely. The whole opening with the "you can't see my hand" trick seems not only condescending, but it also legitimizes the whole prosecution case by suggesting it is a matter of taking sides. If the goal is for the jury to figure out what happened based on the facts, then it isn't really a matter of "he said / she said". There is no other side to the story, there is one hypothesis from the prosecution, and there is an attempt to refute that hypothesis by the defense. Was it just me that felt this way?

 

[JusticeFever]

Slightly changing topics here, but what did people think of the Defense opening statement? Personally, I disliked it intensely. The whole opening with the "you can't see my hand" trick seems not only condescending, but it also legitimizes the whole prosecution case by suggesting it is a matter of taking sides. If the goal is for the jury to figure out what happened based on the facts, then it isn't really a matter of "he said / she said". There is no other side to the story, there is one hypothesis from the prosecution, and there is an attempt to refute that hypothesis by the defense. Was it just me that felt this way?

I compare it as the same as showing both sides of a coin....The defense was preparing the Jury that they were going to hear from the state all the bad things attributed to Jason, and, that they were asking them to wait for their turn to present the other side. JMO

 

[oenophile]

I compare it as the same as showing both sides of a coin....The defense was preparing the Jury that they were going to hear from the state all the bad things attributed to Jason, and, that they were asking them to wait for their turn to present the other side. JMO

I do too, which is what bothers me. First, it is very binary, and it sets up the jury to consider a binary question. However, criminal trials are not binary because "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not binary. In addition, the goal is not to determine which side you believe, but rather to determine what are the facts of the case and how those facts should be interpreted.

 

[citygirl]

I don't know that Gracie has memory problems in regard to that morning. I understand Gracie's testimony quite well, therefore I mustn't be forced to conclude that her testimony is untrue. And again I understand the need to discredit Gracie. <mod snip>

 

[oenophile]

I don't know that Gracie has memory problems in regard to that morning. I understand Gracie's testimony quite well, therefore I mustn't be forced to conclude that her testimony is untrue. And again I understand the need to discredit Gracie. Eventually the discussion will turn back to MF being the perp. :floorlaugh:

Just to clarify, I personally have never suggested that MF was the perp. In fact quite the opposite.

Gracie's memory is faulty in general. It was demonstrated faulty in regard to that morning by her inconsistency between the two trials. And that was with coaching from the prosecution (which is evidenced when she said something about her friend and hearsay, that isn't language that is used in ordinary life, plus she couldn't properly pronounce the word "hearsay").

I have nothing against Gracie. I believe she believes what she says, and that she is being honest. However, it is clear from her testimony that she has memory problems. There is no "need" to discredit Gracie. We simply must look at her testimony in the context. And it is perfectly clear, and well documented, that her memory of that day is severely flawed.

 

[citygirl]

Slightly changing topics here, but what did people think of the Defense opening statement? Personally, I disliked it intensely. The whole opening with the "you can't see my hand" trick seems not only condescending, but it also legitimizes the whole prosecution case by suggesting it is a matter of taking sides. If the goal is for the jury to figure out what happened based on the facts, then it isn't really a matter of "he said / she said". There is no other side to the story, there is one hypothesis from the prosecution, and there is an attempt to refute that hypothesis by the defense. Was it just me that felt this way?

I thought his opening statement was quite good. Whatever happened to Dr. Godwin? Did he ever testify?

 

[citygirl]

Just to clarify, I personally have never suggested that MF was the perp. In fact quite the opposite.

Gracie's memory is faulty in general. It was demonstrated faulty in regard to that morning by her inconsistency between the two trials. And that was with coaching from the prosecution (which is evidenced when she said something about her friend and hearsay, that isn't language that is used in ordinary life, plus she couldn't properly pronounce the word "hearsay").

I have nothing against Gracie. I believe she believes what she says, and that she is being honest. However, it is clear from her testimony that she has memory problems. There is no "need" to discredit Gracie. We simply must look at her testimony in the context. And it is perfectly clear, and well documented, that her memory of that day is severely flawed.

The same could apply to Terry Tiller. She wasn't clear either. And my comment about MF was not directed at you specifically, nor was the need to discredit Gracie directed at you. It was a general statement.

 

[oenophile]

The same could apply to Terry Tiller. She wasn't clear either.

Each witness needs to be considered on the basis of their ability to recall information and the consistency of that information. In general, though, eyewitness testimony is among the most unreliable, and it is the cause of many wrongful prosecutions. I don't have an opinion on Terry Tiller's testimony.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Just to clarify, I personally have never suggested that MF was the perp. In fact quite the opposite.

Gracie's memory is faulty in general. It was demonstrated faulty in regard to that morning by her inconsistency between the two trials. And that was with coaching from the prosecution (which is evidenced when she said something about her friend and hearsay, that isn't language that is used in ordinary life, plus she couldn't properly pronounce the word "hearsay").


.
I have nothing against Gracie. I believe she believes what she says, and that she is being honest. However, it is clear from her testimony that she has memory problems. There is no "need" to discredit Gracie. We simply must look at her testimony in the context. And it is perfectly clear, and well documented, that her memory of that day is severely flawed.

Same here......

 

[JusticeFever]

If there is a Trial 3, it is very probable that some of Gracie's testimony will be used from the other 2 trials and it is not going to be easy for the state to correct some of the things she messed up on, like the time she came to work, whether the gas pumps were turned off before she got there, did she turn them off, did the store have cameras that didn't work, or no cameras at all, and how the regular customer later turned into a newspaper person. Gracie's memory would not get better over time, loss of memory would mean it would get worse, much worse.

Having said that, I do like her too, and I thought she did very well with the 4 Bros photos and the presentation of the layout of the store, describing her job duties, etc. She just did not see Jason, because if she did, then the other people who were there in the store at the same time would have saw Jason too. JMO

 

[SStarr33]

If there is a Trial 3, it is very probable that some of Gracie's testimony will be used from the other 2 trials and it is not going to be easy for the state to correct some of the things she messed up on, like the time she came to work, whether the gas pumps were turned off before she got there, did she turn them off, did the store have cameras that didn't work, or no cameras at all, and how the regular customer later turned into a newspaper person. Gracie's memory would not get better over time, loss of memory would mean it would get worse, much worse.

Having said that, I do like her too, and I thought she did very well with the 4 Bros photos and the presentation of the layout of the store, describing her job duties, etc. She just did not see Jason, because if she did, then the other people who were there in the store at the same time would have saw Jason too. JMO

Sorry but I don't like her at all

 

[tarheellvr]

If there is a Trial 3, it is very probable that some of Gracie's testimony will be used from the other 2 trials and it is not going to be easy for the state to correct some of the things she messed up on, like the time she came to work, whether the gas pumps were turned off before she got there, did she turn them off, did the store have cameras that didn't work, or no cameras at all, and how the regular customer later turned into a newspaper person. Gracie's memory would not get better over time, loss of memory would mean it would get worse, much worse.

I'm sure Gracie's testimony will be used again........as will others from the first 2 trials.

Ahhh...something to remember that always brings a smile. JY's testimony will be used again by DA I'm sure, testimony he is locked into and can never, ever change.

As my attorney/judge relatives have stated...."he is surely scr*wed now" As stated, they think him guilty as hell and think the appeal technicality will get him absolutely nowhere.

 

[Madeleine74]

I neither like nor dislike Gracie because I've never met her and have no basis for any personal opinion about her. As a witness, I believe she told the truth. I believe she did have an encounter that early morning and it did leave an impression on her. However, I could throw out her testimony altogether and still make a decision on the case. She wasn't the central piece or the star witness for me. Her testimony was some icing on the cake but the cake still exists without her IMO.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

She thought he was bald and about her height... SMH!! :gaah::facepalm:

 

[JusticeFever]

Sorry but I don't like her at all

Gracie is hard to figure out, because we really don't know what happened. The convenient convenience store with the convenient convenience clerk. Weird.

Besides, doesn't anyone think it is strange that they didn't have cameras there?
I know, it was 8 years ago, 2006, but come on!! They had cameras on Jason when
he filled up with gas in Raleigh, cameras on him when he went to eat at Cracker Barrel,
and cameras on him at the Hilton Inn.
And, LE said they set up surveillance tapes to find the mystery customer,so, they must have
had to install cameras, because the store didn't have any!!
And, why would they go to all that trouble of doing all that and then never showing her the tapes?
They said they couldn't figure out a way for her to see them........Huh?
They could have made c/d's of the tapes and sent them to her at a local police station near her to view. How were we supposed to buy this?

And, this is jmo,only, but I believe there may have been a time GB tried to bail on them, somehow they lost contact with her,(maybe she moved) and then they came and saw her to tell her they needed her and that her information was important. Maybe the SBI and LW showing up ( I think about 4-5 times) at her door, was a bit much for her.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

I neither like nor dislike Gracie because I've never met her and have no basis for any personal opinion about her. As a witness, I believe she told the truth. I believe she did have an encounter that early morning and it did leave an impression on her. However, I could throw out her testimony altogether and still make a decision on the case. She wasn't the central piece or the star witness for me. Her testimony was some icing on the cake but the cake still exists without her IMO.

Except that this is the only testimony that directly contradicts JY's alibi. Everything else is speculation.

My lawyer friends can't believe that this has gone to trial in the first place with such flimsy evidence.