Jason Young to get new trial #4

[citygirl]

I don't think that grilling her would have helped very much. I think that the defense in the next trial will have to point out things to the jury about her testimony that does not add up. Such as her description of Jason as being "a little taller" than her five feet and that he had maybe a little hair; the fact that she could provide no description of anything else about him such as his shirt and pants etc. Also they could raise the point that she was handling several cash purchases at the same time that the person at the pumps would have been leaving, and the exact fifteen dollar gas receipt when the pumps were supposedly set for twenty. The defense also needs to educate the jury on the proper way to present a potential witness with photographs in order to prevent leading the witness. The rules were not codified until 2007, but the principles have been known and used for decades. A single picture is used when an investigator wants to finger a particular suspect.

Those on this forum who have been defending Gracie have never answered those problem areas. They only reaffirm their belief that Gracie was sincere, which is not an issue. There have been a lot of wrongful convictions based upon sincerely mistaken witness identification. This includes one story where a woman memorized every detail of a rapist's features to be ensure that she would be able to recognize him no matter what, and she still fingered the wrong man.

Glenn

I agree that grilling her would have the adverse effect. The defense DID point out about his height and no hair. Pros rehabbed her on cross. She did say he had no coat, only shirt and jeans on. They also made it quite clear that he was not picked out of a line-up of photos. The second jury must not have had a problem with that. I am well aware of mistakenly identified people. It's a reach to apply this to JY. He went off on her and she REMEMBERED! Man, I'm thinking he never dreamed this would happen. But it did. And he is sentenced for life. MOO.

 

[Glenn101]

I agree that grilling her would have the adverse effect. The defense DID point out about his height and no hair. Pros rehabbed her on cross. She did say he had no coat, only shirt and jeans on. They also made it quite clear that he was not picked out of a line-up of photos. The second jury must not have had a problem with that. I am well aware of mistakenly identified people. It's a reach to apply this to JY. He went off on her and she REMEMBERED! Man, I'm thinking he never dreamed this would happen. But it did. And he is sentenced for life. MOO.

I do not think that the defense did a good job in educating the jury on how easily a false identification can be made, The way Gracie's identification was elicited is a classic case.

As for you comment that Gracie remembered him because he went off on her is something that history provides ample rebuttal witnesses. Take the case of a woman who was raped in 1984. She memorized every detail of his face, determined to find him and bring him to justice. Yet she fingered the wrong man. There are many more similar stories. Once a witness has something settled in their mind they can and do become supremely confident that they are remembering things as they really happened, but so many are proven wrong time and again. We do not know how many others have been wrong but the exonerating evidence has never been found.

The woman was mortified that she had fingered the wrong man.

" In 1984 I was a 22-year-old college student with a grade point average of 4.0, and I really wanted to do something with my life. One night someone broke into my apartment, put a knife to my throat and raped me.

During my ordeal, some of my determination took an urgent new direction. I studied every single detail on the rapist's face. I looked at his hairline; I looked for scars, for tattoos, for anything that would help me identify him. When and if I survived the attack, I was going to make sure that he was put in prison and he was going to rot.

When I went to the police department later that day, I worked on a composite sketch to the very best of my ability. I looked through hundreds of noses and eyes and eyebrows and hairlines and nostrils and lips. Several days later, looking at a series of police photos, I identified my attacker. I knew this was the man. I was completely confident. I was sure.

I picked the same man in a lineup. Again, I was sure. I knew it. I had picked the right guy, and he was going to go to jail. If there was the possibility of a death sentence, I wanted him to die. I wanted to flip the switch.

When the case went to trial in 1986, I stood up on the stand, put my hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth. Based on my testimony, Ronald Junior Cotton was sentenced to prison for life. It was the happiest day of my life because I could begin to put it all behind me.

In 1987, the case was retried because an appellate court had overturned Ronald Cotton's conviction. During a pretrial hearing, I learned that another man had supposedly claimed to be my attacker and was bragging about it in the same prison wing where Ronald Cotton was being held. This man, Bobby Poole, was brought into court, and I was asked, "Ms. Thompson, have you ever seen this man?" I answered: "I have never seen him in my life. I have no idea who
he is."

Ronald Cotton was sentenced again to two life sentences. Ronald Cotton was never going to see light; he was never going to get out; he was never going to hurt another woman; he was never going to rape another woman.

In 1995, 11 years after I had first identified Ronald Cotton, I was asked to provide a blood sample so that DNA tests could be run on evidence from the rape. I agreed because I knew that Ronald Cotton had raped me and DNA was
only going to confirm that. The test would allow me to move on once and for all.

I will never forget the day I learned about the DNA results. I was standing in my kitchen when the detective and the district attorney visited. They were good and decent people who were trying to do their jobs -- as I had done mine, as anyone would try to do the right thing. They told me: "Ronald Cotton didn't rape you. It was Bobby Poole."

Read "I was Certain But I was Wrong" at http://www.truthinjustice.org/positive_id.htm .

I hope that this will give some of you pause to think and rethink.

Glenn

 

[JusticeFever]

I actually agree with this. Gracie is as much a victim in this as anyone. It shouldn't be a matter of ripping her to shreds, but rather sufficiently determining how much of her testimony is accurate and how much of it is inaccurate due to memory issues, police suggestion and misplaced loyalties.

The problem with Gracie is that she has never been able to describe Jason on her own to anyone. She was shown his photo from the start of the investigation , but when asked by law enforcement to describe him, she failed miserably each and every time.

Pointing out all the discrepancies in her testimony should be equal to any other witness.
She is no different, no more special and shouldn't be treated any differently.

Anyone who watched the trial(s) knows how CB was treated and to the extent of what she went through because her timeline didn't fit.

Gracie's story fit so perfectly, that not only did they make trips to see her, they told her how much they needed her and how important she was to the case.

it is my opinion, there were several areas about Gracie that could have been helpful to know. A medical professional could have testified to explain her memory skills, Her boss could have explained her work habits, was she reliable, how did she take orders, etc?

None of this happened, she wasn't touched....but the same can't be said for Cindy Beaver.

if I have time, I will post some examples later. JMO

 

[Landonsmom02]

The problem with Gracie is that she has never been able to describe Jason on her own to anyone. She was shown his photo from the start of the investigation , but when asked by law enforcement to describe him, she failed miserably each and every time.

Pointing out all the discrepancies in her testimony should be equal to any other witness.
She is no different, no more special and shouldn't be treated any differently.

Anyone who watched the trial(s) knows how CB was treated and to the extent of what she went through because her timeline didn't fit.

Gracie's story fit so perfectly, that not only did they make trips to see her, they told her how much they needed her and how important she was to the case.

it is my opinion, there were several areas about Gracie that could have been helpful to know. A medical professional could have testified to explain her memory skills, Her boss could have explained her work habits, was she reliable, how did she take orders, etc?None of this happened, she wasn't touched....but the same can't be said for Cindy Beaver.

if I have time, I will post some examples later. JMO

BBM


But the thing is GB is not the one on trial. A medical professional?? Really??

 

[tarheellvr]

My goodness, all these posts about Gracie are becoming redundant to say the least IMO. The pivotal parts of this case are quite extraordinary on their own.

Yes, her testimony placed him there , but also showed yet again his aggressiveness and impudence.

The prosecutors case against JY could easily keep him exactly where he needs to be without Gracie's testimony. The circumstantial evidence is strong and obviously 12 jurors thought so too.

 

[JusticeFever]

BBM


But the thing is GB is not the one on trial. A medical professional?? Really??

Absolutely!! Gracie said she was run over by a truck and that her brains were on the highway and that she was told this would seriously impact her through the years. I believe she collected disability from a very young age. So, since she was declared disabled, who better than someone in the medical profession to describe her limitations or mental capacities? She admitted herself she has memory problems from other issues as well.

No one said she was on trial, but since she was unable to describe Jason without help, even from the Judge, her testimony has a right to be challenged the same as anyone else..
I have pointed out several inconsistencies in her testimony plus the most obvious and telling one, the failure to find the other person who was in the store and also saw Jason.

Feel free to do the same with any other witness.
JMO

 

[citygirl]

BBM


But the thing is GB is not the one on trial. A medical professional?? Really??

[modsnip] Recall your parent's comments on when you were young. Your fever was so high your hair was on fire. Gracie was so childlike when she described her parent's reaction to her accident. Her brain was on the street. Really? I've been in the medical field for too many years to count and there ain't nobody I know of that lived to tell about their brain being out on the street. Taking that comment as gospel is well......just ridiculous. Gracie had disability payments for years but she never had therapy or continued treatment. She went to school and was classified as a slow learner. That's it! She went on to marry, have children and hold down several jobs. She was part of the American work force. MOO.

 

[citygirl]

My goodness, all these posts about Gracie are becoming redundant to say the least IMO. The pivotal parts of this case are quite extraordinary on their own.

Yes, her testimony placed him there , but also showed yet again his aggressiveness and impudence.

The prosecutors case against JY could easily keep him exactly where he needs to be without Gracie's testimony. The circumstantial evidence is strong and obviously 12 jurors thought so too.

Thank you! I am in and out with posting but are you interested in moving on with something else?
What is your take on the fact the defendant claims to have left his room TWICE and never taken his key card?
Does that make sense? Key cards aren't bulky. They slip in a pocket quite easily. The defendant said he was concerned about the door slamming and annoying other residents. All the more reason to quietly pull the door to and use one's key card upon return. Why is it so readily accepted that this is common practice? I think it's odd. One piece of the coincidence puzzle. MOO.

 

[citygirl]

Taking some time to review the defendants testimony. Just a few minutes in. He knocked over her wine glass BUT DIDN"T BREAK IT. He thought she was purdy and above him. Then they went to the movies. SHE REACHED OUT FOR HIM. They were silly and jokey together, balanced one another out. First embarrassing disagreement was when she barged in on him in the bathroom. When he realized it was no big deal to her he went with it. This coming from the man who had no problem stripping down, whizzing on someone's carpet and doing penis tricks. He was too shy to dance in public but she brought him out. He was soaked! Can't help but wonder how much he was soaked after beating her to death. MOO.

 

[Glenn101]

Thank you! I am in and out with posting but are you interested in moving on with something else?
What is your take on the fact the defendant claims to have left his room TWICE and never taken his key card?
Does that make sense? Key cards aren't bulky. They slip in a pocket quite easily. The defendant said he was concerned about the door slamming and annoying other residents. All the more reason to quietly pull the door to and use one's key card upon return. Why is it so readily accepted that this is common practice? I think it's odd. One piece of the coincidence puzzle. MOO.

So, let's do back off Gracie. Let's back up to the camera at 11:20. (11:19:59) and get Jason from his room to that camera undetected. All I have heard so far is that LE investigators contended that Jason unplugged that camera. Did any of them actually demonstrate how that was possible??? Or was it just opinion?

After looking at the photos of Jason walking down the hallway and the one of the stairwell camera, plus the layout of the hotel, I do not see how he could have gotten to that camera from his room undetected. Somebody help me out here.

Glenn

 

[tarheellvr]

It is odd and IMO, it's not common practice. I've never, ever heard of this done.

As to why is it readily accepted? Why are other aspects of this trial accepted as indisputable fact? I believe anyone can refrain from recognizing the truth if/when they want to. They simply view him as not guilty......a man framed by LE and the court system. Of course people in this position have to ignore facts and truth of this case in order to continue their stance. The key card, like Gracie, is just another element they tear apart and make fit their ideas of fact.

I've always found it interesting, when viewing the evidence in this case, how each and every piece fits together like a puzzle to create a complete circle of truth/fact. IMO, how can these pieces not be accepted as truth? Why do some accept anything JY says as the "holy grail?" As I've said, I also find it interesting, as of now, I have yet to converse with any single person who thinks JY is innocent of murdering his wife and unborn son.

 

[oenophile]

What is your take on the fact the defendant claims to have left his room TWICE and never taken his key card?
Does that make sense? Key cards aren't bulky. They slip in a pocket quite easily. The defendant said he was concerned about the door slamming and annoying other residents. All the more reason to quietly pull the door to and use one's key card upon return. Why is it so readily accepted that this is common practice? I think it's odd. One piece of the coincidence puzzle. MOO.

Because it is common practice. I do it all the time, and I have been a road-warrior for work. There are lots of reasons to do it. The primary one is that quite often hotels have key cards inside the doors that enable the electricity for the room, and you keep the key in the card holder so you can continue using the heat/air conditioner/charger, like the hotel room that I'm typing this from now. It can become a habit to not completely lock your door and leave your key card in your room. In addition, if for whatever reason you get locked out, you can always go to the front desk to get a new one.

It is only common practice if you travel alot. And perhaps it is not common for everyone, but there are a lot of people that do exactly what he did regularly.

 

[Boodles]

Because it is common practice. I do it all the time, and I have been a road-warrior for work. There are lots of reasons to do it. The primary one is that quite often hotels have key cards inside the doors that enable the electricity for the room, and you keep the key in the card holder so you can continue using the heat/air conditioner/charger, like the hotel room that I'm typing this from now. It can become a habit to not completely lock your door and leave your key card in your room. In addition, if for whatever reason you get locked out, you can always go to the front desk to get a new one.

It is only common practice if you travel alot. And perhaps it is not common for everyone, but there are a lot of people that do exactly what he did regularly.

How do you "not completely lock your door"?

 

[oenophile]

How do you "not completely lock your door"?

A few ways, it usually depends on the door.

The first and more obvious way is to take the secondary lock, which looks like a large sideways "U", and turn it while the door is open so that it keeps the door propped open. This is pretty easy to see that the door is propped open, but I do this all the time for quick runs out of the room when I know I'm coming right back. This is the most common way that I would keep my door propped open.

Second way is also obvious, turn the deadbolt while the door is open, and it will close but not be fully closed.

Third way is if the door is heavy, the latch will only engage when it is all the way closed. Usually in these cases the door rubs a little against the archway, which is why they have very strong spring mechanisms to close the door (and is why you hear the loud "bam" when you just let it slam). In this case, you can close the door manually but slowly to make sure that it doesn't go all the way so that the latch engages. It's pretty easy to do with many hotel room doors because they are so heavy. However, there is a risk that someone else might slam their door nearby, and the vibrations would cause your door to close and lock.

Out of note, of the three options above, the only one that would work on my current hotel door is #2.

 

[oenophile]

Third way is if the door is heavy, the latch will only engage when it is all the way closed. Usually in these cases the door rubs a little against the archway, which is why they have very strong spring mechanisms to close the door (and is why you hear the loud "bam" when you just let it slam). In this case, you can close the door manually but slowly to make sure that it doesn't go all the way so that the latch engages. It's pretty easy to do with many hotel room doors because they are so heavy. However, there is a risk that someone else might slam their door nearby, and the vibrations would cause your door to close and lock.

I hadn't thought of this before, but the other way that a door closed like this would likely latch locked is if someone put something on the door handle, such as a newspaper. I would love to do an experiment on the door of the room JY stayed in to see a) how the door would be closed but not locked; and b) if the act of putting a newspaper on the door would cause the door to fully close and lock. If so, this would back up JY's version of events.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Silly, isn't it? Recall your parent's comments on when you were young. Your fever was so high your hair was on fire. Gracie was so childlike when she described her parent's reaction to her accident. Her brain was on the street. Really? I've been in the medical field for too many years to count and there ain't nobody I know of that lived to tell about their brain being out on the street. Taking that comment as gospel is well......just ridiculous. Gracie had disability payments for years but she never had therapy or continued treatment. She went to school and was classified as a slow learner. That's it! She went on to marry, have children and hold down several jobs. She was part of the American work force. MOO.

Its NOT silly to some of us.. If you dont like what is being said keeping on scrolling..

 

[SteelerGirl43]

So, let's do back off Gracie. Let's back up to the camera at 11:20. (11:19:59) and get Jason from his room to that camera undetected. All I have heard so far is that LE investigators contended that Jason unplugged that camera. Did any of them actually demonstrate how that was possible??? Or was it just opinion?

After looking at the photos of Jason walking down the hallway and the one of the stairwell camera, plus the layout of the hotel, I do not see how he could have gotten to that camera from his room undetected. Somebody help me out here.

Glenn

Yea you can start on something else & someone will complain about that subject also....

 

[JusticeFever]

Here is another example why some things around Gracie seem off..the arraignment and pre-trial hearing video!!
When the court makes their decision on whether Gracie can testify, it is is done off camera. Later we find out she could not describe Jason and the Judge had to help her . Why weren't we able to see this for ourselves? The court makes all their other rulings on camera but when it comes to Gracie, the cameras are shut off...... :waitasec: Why??????

http://www.wral.com/news/video/9616199/

 

[JusticeFever]

I hadn't thought of this before, but the other way that a door closed like this would likely latch locked is if someone put something on the door handle, such as a newspaper. I would love to do an experiment on the door of the room JY stayed in to see a) how the door would be closed but not locked; and b) if the act of putting a newspaper on the door would cause the door to fully close and lock. If so, this would back up JY's version of events.

Steve Hale, an investigator in JY's case demonstrated the way the door was ajar without locking, and also the twig demo that JY used to hold the hotel exit door open...... I still need to watch Jason's entire testimony, I think I will move onto that...

Here is the link to Jason's testimony, Part 3, I don't have the specific time mark though.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9765920/

 

[JusticeFever]

This is the testimony from Steve Hale, he is a PI, he worked for the WCSO for 26 years, and retired as a Det. Lieutenant.....

This is the video to show his findings from the Hampton Inn,(doors, etc) very very very impressive. IMO It is only 36.54..and it has discs full of photos of what he saw and did.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10791413/