Jason Young to get new trial #4

[oenophile]

The more I read about the David Camm case, the more this case resembles it. In both, the husband was immediately blamed for the murders. In both, the husband had an alibi, and the police claim that he traveled to and from the place he was seen in order to commit the murders. In both, the wife was home alone with children. (In the Camm case, the kids were killed too, which is different) And in both cases, the state made almost an immediate conclusion that it wasn't a random murder and tried to fit the evidence to their conclusion.

The big difference is that in the Camm case, they actually found the killer, largely due to the investigative work of the defense team. And yet the state continued to prosecute even though the killer was found. And the jury CONVICTED even though the actual killer was found. It was only in the third trial that he was found Not Guilty. And even then, there were people on this board and in the local community that are still absolutely convinced of his guilt.

Had it not been for the actual killer being found, and had it not been for a retrial due to appeal, David Camm would still be sitting in jail, an innocent man persecuted by the state relentlessly. Basically, he had to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that what will be required with JY? And for that matter Brad Cooper? If they don't find the real killers, are they destined to be innocent men sitting in jail until they die? This is what frightens me the most about the U.S. justice system and those here that are absolutely certain of their guilt.

 

[citygirl]

Would you explain why you feel Gracie is solid with all of the information that has been presented about the inconsistencies in her testimonies, her admitted memory problems, the fact that she actually said that she had read about the case but reversed herself on the stand, she described Jason as being a little taller than herself with a little bit of hair, did not describe Jason or his vehicle prior to seeing pictures of them, and was shown those pictures by themseles and did not pick them out of any type of lineup????

I am not trying to be offensive here. I am really trying to understand the thought processes of those who believe Jason to be guilty.

I approach every case believing in the presumed innocent until proven guilty and the reasonable doubt principals. So I question every bit of evidence to see if it holds up to critical scrutiny. At this point, even if I believed that Jason had actually killed his wife, as a juror, I would not be able to pronounce him guilty because there just is such a dearth of any actual evidence that can link him to the crime and a lot of unanswered questions.

Glenn

Not to worry. No offense taken. I don't read Gracie's inconsistencies any worse than the witnesses that the defense proffered. And if you listen closely to Gracie's testimony she makes sense. She explains her memory problems since the crime was committed. She never wavers about the defendant. Never. I don't recall her saying that she read about the case. She said a friend told her she had seen it on the news. I don't believe Gracie has an agenda.
The detective said they never showed Gracie a picture of the car. She volunteered that it was a white SUV THEN they showed her a pic. He testified to this. She unwittingly refuted it.
What I find curious is that the JY is innocent cadre takes her at her word on THIS point but nothing else.

 

[JusticeFever]

Why is is so hard to stick to the truth about what GB testified ? I have posted links to each of the trial testimony she gave.

Becky Holt......What did they ask you when the police officers came?
GB....They asked me if I had seen a white SUV come through back here a few days before ahead of time.
Becky Holt....What did you tell them?
GB: I said, Yes, I believe so.
Then they showed me a picture of the white SUV

Please stop posting things that just aren't true.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714910

32:30 mark

 

[oenophile]

What I find curious is that the JY is innocent cadre takes her at her word on THIS point but nothing else.

I think we all take her at her word in that she believes what she says. What we say is that a) her memory was prompted by the police; b) her memory problems clearly need to be taken into consideration for her credibility; c) there are other pieces of hard evidence that contradict her testimony; and d) her testimony itself is inconsistent.

The challenge is that you have to move from generalities (someone walked in and was argumentative) to specifics (that person can be positively identified several days later). The first is easy to remember because it is an emotional event. The second requires different type of memory, and it is much more difficult. That is why it is so difficult for witnesses to a crime to identify a suspect. And that is when they know they are watching a crime. Gracie had no reason to believe that the person who she recalls as being argumentative was involved in any sort of crime (probably because he wasn't as it likely wasn't JY). She had no reason to commit his face to memory.

 

[JusticeFever]

I think we all take her at her word in that she believes what she says. What we say is that a) her memory was prompted by the police; b) her memory problems clearly need to be taken into consideration for her credibility; c) there are other pieces of hard evidence that contradict her testimony; and d) her testimony itself is inconsistent.

The challenge is that you have to move from generalities (someone walked in and was argumentative) to specifics (that person can be positively identified several days later). The first is easy to remember because it is an emotional event. The second requires different type of memory, and it is much more difficult. That is why it is so difficult for witnesses to a crime to identify a suspect. And that is when they know they are watching a crime. Gracie had no reason to believe that the person who she recalls as being argumentative was involved in any sort of crime (probably because he wasn't as it likely wasn't JY). She had no reason to commit his face to memory.

I don't know how to make it any clearer, they walked in with a photo of a SUV and asked her if she saw it, then they showed her a photo of Jason and asked if she saw him........
That's it, that is exactly how it happened.
She never volunteered any information about anything before they started questioning her and showing her the pictures.......ever....
I don't understand the need to say she said or did anything differently, when her testimony has been posted here over and over again......

 

[oenophile]

I don't know how to make it any clearer, they walked in with a photo of a SUV and asked her if she saw it, then they showed her a photo of Jason and asked if she saw him........
That's it, that is exactly how it happened.
She never volunteered any information about anything before they started questioning her and showing her the pictures.......ever....
I don't understand the need to say she said or did anything differently, when her testimony has been posted here over and over again......

I think what citygirl is trying to say is that there are two conflicting accounts of what happened. The account you describe is what Gracie describes, and then another account by the police where they claim that she volunteered the information prior to them showing her a photo. Since neither of us were there, and since Gracie's account isn't corroborated, you cannot claim that Gracie's account "is exactly how it happened", we need to weigh the two accounts. In addition, it is inconsistent to say that Gracie's account is automatically the correct one when the other things she remembers are called into question.

That being said, I do not find it reasonable that she volunteered the information given the length of time that passed, and also given that the police were going from station to station trying to find out if anyone saw Jason or his car. What would prompt her to volunteer that information if she had no context about Jason or the investigation? It just doesn't make sense. Thus, I find the police officer's account lacking credibility.

 

[citygirl]

I think what citygirl is trying to say is that there are two conflicting accounts of what happened. The account you describe is what Gracie describes, and then another account by the police where they claim that she volunteered the information prior to them showing her a photo. Since neither of us were there, and since Gracie's account isn't corroborated, you cannot claim that Gracie's account "is exactly how it happened", we need to weigh the two accounts. In addition, it is inconsistent to say that Gracie's account is automatically the correct one when the other things she remembers are called into question.

That being said, I do not find it reasonable that she volunteered the information given the length of time that passed, and also given that the police were going from station to station trying to find out if anyone saw Jason or his car. What would prompt her to volunteer that information if she had no context about Jason or the investigation? It just doesn't make sense. Thus, I find the police officer's account lacking credibility.

Thanks for your post. That was exactly my point. But you have lost me on the length of time. Gracie was found on Sunday, 3 days after the murder. The only context she had was LE came in, asked her if she had seen this guy and SHE REMEMBERED because he mistreated her. Plain and simple. MOO.

 

[JusticeFever]

I think what citygirl is trying to say is that there are two conflicting accounts of what happened. The account you describe is what Gracie describes, and then another account by the police where they claim that she volunteered the information prior to them showing her a photo. Since neither of us were there, and since Gracie's account isn't corroborated, you cannot claim that Gracie's account "is exactly how it happened", we need to weigh the two accounts. In addition, it is inconsistent to say that Gracie's account is automatically the correct one when the other things she remembers are called into question.

That being said, I do not find it reasonable that she volunteered the information given the length of time that passed, and also given that the police were going from station to station trying to find out if anyone saw Jason or his car. What would prompt her to volunteer that information if she had no context about Jason or the investigation? It just doesn't make sense. Thus, I find the police officer's account lacking credibility.

There wasn't any specific detective name given, and this case had several, including SBI agents....There is no link to any video testimony either, so I have no idea what it's about, and the discussion was Gracie's testimony and how she said she was approached in this investigation. She was shown photos of the SUV and Jason, and that is how and when she made her identification. I posted specific back-up numerous times of how the photos were shown to her first..and identification made second.

 

[JusticeFever]

^^ There still isn't any link and you never posted one to begin with, plus there are 2 trials......

 

[citygirl]

^^ There still isn't any link and you never posted one to begin with, plus there are 2 trials......

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714913/

 

[JusticeFever]

The more I read about the David Camm case, the more this case resembles it. In both, the husband was immediately blamed for the murders. In both, the husband had an alibi, and the police claim that he traveled to and from the place he was seen in order to commit the murders. In both, the wife was home alone with children. (In the Camm case, the kids were killed too, which is different) And in both cases, the state made almost an immediate conclusion that it wasn't a random murder and tried to fit the evidence to their conclusion.

The big difference is that in the Camm case, they actually found the killer, largely due to the investigative work of the defense team. And yet the state continued to prosecute even though the killer was found. And the jury CONVICTED even though the actual killer was found. It was only in the third trial that he was found Not Guilty. And even then, there were people on this board and in the local community that are still absolutely convinced of his guilt.

Had it not been for the actual killer being found, and had it not been for a retrial due to appeal, David Camm would still be sitting in jail, an innocent man persecuted by the state relentlessly. Basically, he had to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that what will be required with JY? And for that matter Brad Cooper? If they don't find the real killers, are they destined to be innocent men sitting in jail until they die? This is what frightens me the most about the U.S. justice system and those here that are absolutely certain of their guilt.

Not familiar with the Camm case at all, interesting!! In Jason's case, I just find it amazing that the gas station in Raleigh had cameras, Cracker Barrel had cameras, the Hampton Inn had cameras, but none at 4 Bros. I feel bad for the clerks who worked there under those unsafe conditions and that the state would use this to their advantage in this case.

 

[oenophile]

Thanks for your post. That was exactly my point. But you have lost me on the length of time. Gracie was found on Sunday, 3 days after the murder. The only context she had was LE came in, asked her if she had seen this guy and SHE REMEMBERED because he mistreated her. Plain and simple. MOO.

Three days is actually quite a long time when it comes to memory. She had no real reason to remember the face of the person she encountered that morning. It didn't seem that she felt threatened, else she would have reported something. Simply put, the person she encountered wasn't important until the police came asking about Jason. At that point, it would be quite easy to juxtapose Jason's identity onto that person in her mind.

This is why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable.

 

[oenophile]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9714913/

Interesting. I noticed that Gracie's identification of JY went from "fairly certain" (16:10) to "quite certain" (18:15).

 

[CBTampa]

I don't know how many people have not read the linked search warrant. What I found interesting is the interview with Alan Fisher. It is a good read. IMO

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2009/02/10/4508366/20090210114743620.pdf

 

[JusticeFever]

Interesting. I noticed that Gracie's identification of JY went from "fairly certain" (16:10) to "quite certain" (18:15).

I saw that.......in fact, it went to fairly certain in Trial 1 to almost "positive" in Trial 2..
I like how they tried to get around not showing her a photo lineup at any time, they said
that it wasn't necessary because she had already id'ed him from a photo. That still
doesn't take away from the fact the proper proceedure should have been a line up to begin with.

On another note, I wonder if any of those convenient stores/gas station employees working off the highway knew they were being protected with faux cameras, and letting that information out for possible would be robbers back then!! This is one of the most dangerous
jobs to begin with and to think they were pretty much all alone, did they at least have an alarm system to report the kind of encounter GB had?

And, what about McDonald's, they didn't have any working cameras either?? GB said JY drove around to their exit.......they had pretend cameras too?

 

[JusticeFever]

** Trial 2 Det. Ikerd
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10708996/

19.14 mark.... "almost positive"

 

[tarheellvr]

This was hardly a technicality. Attempting to win a trial by presenting the outcome of the civil case was unprecedented in the history of US court cases. I feel confident that prosecutors (Cummings/ Willoughby) knew this would come back, but they didn't care. They knew it would tie things up for a long time. They know that a G verdict is damaging and even with a new trial, it is a difficult thing to overcome. [modsnip]. Whether one believes JY is guilty or innocent isn't important in the overall realm of things. The fact that one can no longer receive a fair trial should be concerning to everyone.

The civil case was not the basis of the DA's case against JY. I feel more than confident prosecutors knew this as well and saw the introduction of the civil case as "just another piece of the circle" The usage of the civil case certainly was not what brought about a guilty verdict. To infer the DA's office used this as you described is ludicrous. They had a case based on evidence, yes a lot of it circumstantial, but neverless had a case and felt confident in bringing it to trial. They had much, much more than the civil case.

I don't feel this is damaging to JY at all. He most certainly DID get a guilty verdict, decided by 12 men and women who were there to watch and listen to every minute of this trial. They obviously listened to the totality of evidence and voted guilty. Yes, he won an appeal, which I still feel is a small technicality when you consider the entire trial and all the evidence presented. If JY does go to trial again, DA's office will certainly win again without the civil case being presented......and yes, I will always believe it was JY himself who caused his case damage when he testified because he is locked into that testimony and cannot/will not change it. I do believe he got a fair trial and I believe he would get a fair 3rd trial.

 

[citygirl]

** Trial 2 Det. Ikerd
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10708996/

19.14 mark.... "almost positive"

18.07 mark. They asked her what vehicle he was driving and she said a white SUV. No photo of the car was shown to her prior to that. Only the defendant's photo was shown.

 

[citygirl]

I don't know how many people have not read the linked search warrant. What I found interesting is the interview with Alan Fisher. It is a good read. IMO

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2009/02/10/4508366/20090210114743620.pdf

Thank you. A good refresher. I hadn't seen that recently. Mr Fisher was clearly intent on sizing up his SIL after the murder. The chameleon. MOO.

 

[citygirl]

Three days is actually quite a long time when it comes to memory. She had no real reason to remember the face of the person she encountered that morning. It didn't seem that she felt threatened, else she would have reported something. Simply put, the person she encountered wasn't important until the police came asking about Jason. At that point, it would be quite easy to juxtapose Jason's identity onto that person in her mind.

This is why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable.

Does that mean that you discount the defense witnesses that saw cars in the driveway?