Jason Young to get new trial

[MyBelle]

Both the Cooper and Young trials spent so much time on character assassination.
They each had an affair(s), they were both jerks at times , anything to make the public and the jury hate them. Makes one wonder if it was to divert from lack of motive and evidence?

Not much 'wonder' needed.

 

[oenophile]

That's true but once someone goes from being a member of the public to that of "juror" they are supposed to set aside assumptions and weigh only the evidence. And the Judge is supposed to ensure a fair trial. When nobody seems to follow their sworn duty, cases like Young and Cooper happen. A total waste of time, money and not to mention the penalty to the children who have lost both parents in the years it takes to undo the mess.

I fundamentally believe that the jurors followed their sworn duties, despite the difficulties in doing so. It is human nature to assume that the prosecution would only bring a case to trial if they believed that the person was guilty, and it is extraordinarily difficult for jurors to overcome this bias, yet they do it. It is the prosecution (and LE) that should be more focused on determining the actual killers versus ensuring that someone gets blamed for the crime. The MO for LE seems to be to create a hypothesis for the crime and then see if they can make the evidence fit the hypothesis. What they should be doing is following the evidence and letting that lead them to the killer. In both the Young and Cooper cases, LE basically discounted (and thus did not investigate) evidence that did not fit with their hypothesis that the husband did it.

When solving a murder by putting an innocent person in jail is superior to an unsolved murder, then our justice system has some problems.

 

[jova33]

I fundamentally believe that the jurors followed their sworn duties, despite the difficulties in doing so. It is human nature to assume that the prosecution would only bring a case to trial if they believed that the person was guilty, and it is extraordinarily difficult for jurors to overcome this bias, yet they do it. It is the prosecution (and LE) that should be more focused on determining the actual killers versus ensuring that someone gets blamed for the crime. The MO for LE seems to be to create a hypothesis for the crime and then see if they can make the evidence fit the hypothesis. What they should be doing is following the evidence and letting that lead them to the killer. In both the Young and Cooper cases, LE basically discounted (and thus did not investigate) evidence that did not fit with their hypothesis that the husband did it.

When solving a murder by putting an innocent person in jail is superior to an unsolved murder, then our justice system has some problems.

I forget the numbers, but it's somewhere around 75% of the people who find themselves in the defendant's chair get convicted. Jurors for the most part think that person must've done something wrong to get there.
I think this conviction falls on LE and the prosecution manipulating the evidence, and the judge's bias.

Like the video camera stuff at the hotel. It wasn't JY messing with it. It's not his fingerprints. Why is this even presented as evidence against him?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[sunshine05]

I forget the numbers, but it's somewhere around 75% of the people who find themselves in the defendant's chair get convicted. Jurors for the most part think that person must've done something wrong to get there.
I think this conviction falls on LE and the prosecution manipulating the evidence, and the judge's bias.

Like the video camera stuff at the hotel. It wasn't JY messing with it. It's not his fingerprints. Why is this even presented as evidence against him?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Not only that, they had a witness who described two people in an SUV at the foot of the Young's driveway that morning at 5:30. One of them was described as a female with thick/dark/frizzy hair. Wouldn't you think investigators might have shown the witness a photo line-up to include Meredith since she was the person who discovered the victim? There is documented evidence that she was out until at least 4AM. Instead they're showing a clerk a photo of Jason and saying "Did you see this person?" Confirmation bias. Ignoring eyewitness statements because it points away from their theory. Then going further by attempting to discredit the witness by bringing in her manager to testify that she is a busybody. That was despicable.

 

[MyBelle]

I fundamentally believe that the jurors followed their sworn duties, despite the difficulties in doing so. It is human nature to assume that the prosecution would only bring a case to trial if they believed that the person was guilty, and it is extraordinarily difficult for jurors to overcome this bias, yet they do it. It is the prosecution (and LE) that should be more focused on determining the actual killers versus ensuring that someone gets blamed for the crime. The MO for LE seems to be to create a hypothesis for the crime and then see if they can make the evidence fit the hypothesis. What they should be doing is following the evidence and letting that lead them to the killer. In both the Young and Cooper cases, LE basically discounted (and thus did not investigate) evidence that did not fit with their hypothesis that the husband did it.

When solving a murder by putting an innocent person in jail is superior to an unsolved murder, then our justice system has some problems.

BBM. All jurors aren't abiding by Judge's instructions. All it takes is one. It is a huge problem nationwide.

Through social networking services like Facebook and Twitter, jurors have committed significant and often high-profile acts of misconduct. Just recently, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a death sentence because a juror Tweeted about the case during deliberations. In light of the significant risks to a fair trial that arise when jurors communicate through social media during trial, judges must be vigilant in monitoring for potential outside influences and in deterring misconduct.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dltr/vol11/iss1/1/

 

[Boodles]

I fundamentally believe that the jurors followed their sworn duties, despite the difficulties in doing so. It is human nature to assume that the prosecution would only bring a case to trial if they believed that the person was guilty, and it is extraordinarily difficult for jurors to overcome this bias, yet they do it. It is the prosecution (and LE) that should be more focused on determining the actual killers versus ensuring that someone gets blamed for the crime. The MO for LE seems to be to create a hypothesis for the crime and then see if they can make the evidence fit the hypothesis. What they should be doing is following the evidence and letting that lead them to the killer. In both the Young and Cooper cases, LE basically discounted (and thus did not investigate) evidence that did not fit with their hypothesis that the husband did it.

When solving a murder by putting an innocent person in jail is superior to an unsolved murder, then our justice system has some problems.

bbm. I can't speak to Cooper, and have no opinion about that case, as I did not follow it. I did follow Michelle Young's murder from the day it happened.

Please back up your statement that LE 'discounted and thus did not investigate evidence.' Like what? Do you have insight and were you privy to what LE investigated and what they did not? Please share facts.

Regarding justicefever's "character assassination" comments, e.g., about JY and BC both 'being jerks at times' etc., thus being the default suspects, do you really believe the husband's behavior is irrelevant? Do you not understand or agree that circumstances make up pieces of an entire situation? Are you suggesting that circumstances be omitted from consideration, and only direct evidence be considered?

I had no preconceived notions about a suspect when Michelle was murdered. For the longest time, there was absolutely no information released. Supposedly, "the husband was out of town" although that was never substantiated or solidly confirmed by official sources prior to the trial as far as I knew.

Then, the pieces came out: JY (conveniently) was out of town, but not very far away; his "hey Meredith, go pick up that expired auction printout from a Coach purse eBay sale at the house in the middle of the day" request; JY's refuseal to ever inquire about his wife's death or speak with any member of law enforcement; JY's first and only priority was to immediately hire attorney Roger Smith to CHA rather than to assist investigators; affairs with Michele Money et al; etc., etc., etc. (watch the trial for the hundreds of etc's), I could not come to any other conclusion.

I have no doubts that he did this. Whether someone conducted some tasks related to the murder afterward, I don't know and my mind is open. It's possible LE suspects another's involvement but cannot prove it (or gave someone else 'consideration' for testifying). I personally do not think anyone except JY committed the murder itself. But I do wonder where 2 specific individuals were that night and the next day (and I'm NOT referring to any members of MY's family).

I am grateful for NC's jury instructions about circumstantial evidence. Not all states use it, e.g., FL in some recent trials. Circumstantial evidence requires more "hard thinking," IMO, because you gave to assemble the totality of the situation piece by piece. It's not as easy as being handed a smoking gun. I wish more definition could be elaborated upon in regard to "reasonable doubt" to help jurors understand the concept. Any old "Joe" can let himself off the hook from making an unpleasant decision by hanging his hat on a red herring.

 

[Nymeria]

Then, the pieces came out: JY (conveniently) was out of town, but not very far away; his "hey Meredith, go pick up that expired auction printout from a Coach purse eBay sale at the house in the middle of the day" request; JY's refuseal to ever inquire about his wife's death or speak with any member of law enforcement; JY's first and only priority was to immediately hire attorney Roger Smith to CHA rather than to assist investigators; affairs with Michele Money et al; etc., etc., etc. (watch the trial for the hundreds of etc's), I could not come to any other conclusion.

*Respectfully snipped by me*

These things.
I asked about them, and they were written off, pretty much.
They still scream *off* to me though.

Yes, they can all be explained away in different ways, but when added together they just seem like huge red flags to me.

 

[oenophile]

bbm. I can't speak to Cooper, and have no opinion about that case, as I did not follow it. I did follow Michelle Young's murder from the day it happened.

Please back up your statement that LE 'discounted and thus did not investigate evidence.' Like what? Do you have insight and were you privy to what LE investigated and what they did not? Please share facts.

My knowledge of the Young case is far inferior to that of the Cooper case, sortof the opposite of you. There were tons of examples in the Cooper case that came out at trial. I can only refer to other posts on this forum for examples in the Young case (and so need to go back and reread what prompted that opinion).

Regarding justicefever's "character assassination" comments, e.g., about JY and BC both 'being jerks at times' etc., thus being the default suspects, do you really believe the husband's behavior is irrelevant? Do you not understand or agree that circumstances make up pieces of an entire situation? Are you suggesting that circumstances be omitted from consideration, and only direct evidence be considered?

This is a red herring that you and others keep bringing up. Circumstantial evidence should always be considered, both individually and in its entirety. However, picking and choosing circumstantial evidence to fit one outcome does not promote justice. The husband's behavior is relevant in as much as it would indicate guilt. Being a jerk does not make you a default suspect.

For what it's worth, I have no opinion as to the innocence or guilt of JY. I'm still kinda stuck on the hotel camera. On paper, he looks innocent. When I watched his testimony in the first trial, I thought he came across guilty as sin, especially the whole story about the cigar (I have an occasional cigar, I have never encountered anyone standing in a parking lot for half an hour at midnight in order to smoke one). That, and leaving the door propped for half an hour doesn't make sense either, especially if you have a computer with you that anyone can help themselves to in the room. At the same time, it just seems so far fetched to drive that far in order to create an alibi.

But I'd really want to know that the police investigated all other leads as well.

 

[MyBelle]

My knowledge of the Young case is far inferior to that of the Cooper case, sortof the opposite of you. There were tons of examples in the Cooper case that came out at trial. I can only refer to other posts on this forum for examples in the Young case (and so need to go back and reread what prompted that opinion).




This is a red herring that you and others keep bringing up. Circumstantial evidence should always be considered, both individually and in its entirety. However, picking and choosing circumstantial evidence to fit one outcome does not promote justice. The husband's behavior is relevant in as much as it would indicate guilt. Being a jerk does not make you a default suspect.

For what it's worth, I have no opinion as to the innocence or guilt of JY. I'm still kinda stuck on the hotel camera. On paper, he looks innocent. When I watched his testimony in the first trial, I thought he came across guilty as sin, especially the whole story about the cigar (I have an occasional cigar, I have never encountered anyone standing in a parking lot for half an hour at midnight in order to smoke one). That, and leaving the door propped for half an hour doesn't make sense either, especially if you have a computer with you that anyone can help themselves to in the room. At the same time, it just seems so far fetched to drive that far in order to create an alibi.

But I'd really want to know that the police investigated all other leads as well.

In the Cooper case, cops didn't investigate witness reports. Cops are paid the same whether they investigate all leads or not. The goal is to get the case closed as quickly as possible.

The entire cigar scenario fizzled for the prosecution. It was a red herring, not evidence of anything at all. To say that JY was out of town and close by as a matter of his convenience is a misrepresentation of fact. It was a business related trip out of state with a scheduled meeting time.

 

[jova33]

Evidence was mishandled. They confiscated JY's vehicle and contents, but didn't inventory the contents. Issue a warrant for the shirt he was wearing 26 months later.

The crime scene. They missed a tooth for sure. What was overlooked?

MY was never tested for sexual assault. What happened there?

The whole gas station attendant mishandling. They showed her only one picture, not a photo array, not a series of photos, just JY. Her ID of JY is ruined right there.

Didn't they search MF's car months after the murder? Why not immediately?

edit: typo
Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[otto]

My knowledge of the Young case is far inferior to that of the Cooper case, sortof the opposite of you. There were tons of examples in the Cooper case that came out at trial. I can only refer to other posts on this forum for examples in the Young case (and so need to go back and reread what prompted that opinion).




This is a red herring that you and others keep bringing up. Circumstantial evidence should always be considered, both individually and in its entirety. However, picking and choosing circumstantial evidence to fit one outcome does not promote justice. The husband's behavior is relevant in as much as it would indicate guilt. Being a jerk does not make you a default suspect.

For what it's worth, I have no opinion as to the innocence or guilt of JY. I'm still kinda stuck on the hotel camera. On paper, he looks innocent. When I watched his testimony in the first trial, I thought he came across guilty as sin, especially the whole story about the cigar (I have an occasional cigar, I have never encountered anyone standing in a parking lot for half an hour at midnight in order to smoke one). That, and leaving the door propped for half an hour doesn't make sense either, especially if you have a computer with you that anyone can help themselves to in the room. At the same time, it just seems so far fetched to drive that far in order to create an alibi.

But I'd really want to know that the police investigated all other leads as well.

Chris Porco drove more than three hours to murder his parents with an axe. He then returned to his school dorm. His mother survived, but her brain was too damaged to remember what happened. Although the police theory is the same, there are significant differences between the two cases. For example, in the Porco case, the suspect's vehicle was seen on CCTV and parked at his parent's house.

 

[Madeleine74]

JY drove less than halfway to his important sales call, the entire reason he allegedly made this trip in the first place, and this was a new job. He was a sales rep, in the field, but he only made 1 appointment. Instead of driving close to this important sales call, which would be the logical thing to do, he for some reason decided to stop hours short of that destination. And then, on top of that, he was 30+ min late to this appointment the next morning.

Makes perfect sense .... not.

 

[otto]

JY drove less than halfway to his important sales call, the entire reason he allegedly made this trip in the first place, and this was a new job. He was a sales rep, in the field, but he only made 1 appointment. Instead of driving close to this important sales call, which would be the logical thing to do, he for some reason decided to stop hours short of that destination. And then, on top of that, he was 30+ min late to this appointment the next morning.

Makes perfect sense .... not.

Jason's arrival time at the meeting was easily explained by the fact that there was construction on a cloverleaf ramp near his meeting. If we all know that, why is it still important? What is significant about being 30 minutes late for a meeting when the person attending the meeting had no way of knowing about the construction and ... everyone in that situation would have been 30 minutes late for the same meeting? There is nothing suspicious about Jason's being 30 minutes late for the meeting.

Jason arrived at the hotel just before midnight. Should he have driven until 1 or 2 AM and taken a hotel across the street from the meeting, or should he have stopped at a hotel at about midnight and completed the trip on the winding, unfamiliar road in the morning? What is the smartest thing for anyone to do?

It doesn't make sense to repeatedly mention that someone was late for a meeting when there is a completely reasonable explanation for being late. It also doesn't make sense to suggest that someone should drive on an unfamiliar winding road in the middle of the night when it's safer to complete the trip in daylight.

 

[otto]

I read upthread about the hose that was not completely shut off in the Young's backyard. I seem to recall that Jason was doing all sorts of yardwork on the last day that he was at home (before his wife was murdered). He was doing the yardwork because there was a possibility that his father in law would be visiting and he wanted the yard to look good ... but his father in law had cancer and was unable to visit. Since Jason was doing the yard, isn't it completely normal that he would have used the hose? Isn't it common that sometimes the hose is left dripping?

Why is that dripping hose now part of an imaginary scenario where Jason murdered his wife, then washed himself and his clothing in the backyard on November 2?

 

[Madeleine74]

When the purpose of heading out on the road is for a biz trip to make a sales pitch hours away, the logical thing to do is get as close to the meeting as possible to avoid any problems with travel so one isn't late to the appointment the next morning. This wasn't a vacation jaunt. Why incur an overnight hotel stay 2.5 hrs away. Not logical.

There's always a reason why people are late when they are late, but a potential customer is not to be kept waiting and professional business people know that. This wasn't JY's first sales job. It doesn't make a good impression when a sales rep is late to an appointment and yes, it was avoidable because he could have gotten closer to his appointment.

JY chose to get on the road, stop for dinner an hour later rather than eat free Italian food brought by SS to his house, decided to stop just over the VA border at a hotel, which still put him in striking distance to getting back to Raleigh, rather than be closer to his appointment. And then he was late to the appointment.

It can be spun every which way (as I'm sure it has) but that's what he did. And, most importantly, it was enough time for him to be able to get back to his house and commit a murder and get back to the Hampton Inn.

 

[MyBelle]

Jason's arrival time at the meeting was easily explained by the fact that there was construction on a cloverleaf ramp near his meeting. If we all know that, why is it still important? What is significant about being 30 minutes late for a meeting when the person attending the meeting had no way of knowing about the construction and ... everyone in that situation would have been 30 minutes late for the same meeting? There is nothing suspicious about Jason's being 30 minutes late for the meeting.

Jason arrived at the hotel just before midnight. Should he have driven until 1 or 2 AM and taken a hotel across the street from the meeting, or should he have stopped at a hotel at about midnight and completed the trip on the winding, unfamiliar road in the morning? What is the smartest thing for anyone to do?

It doesn't make sense to repeatedly mention that someone was late for a meeting when there is a completely reasonable explanation for being late. It also doesn't make sense to suggest that someone should drive on an unfamiliar winding road in the middle of the night when it's safer to complete the trip in daylight.

You're right and no matter how often the same inane stuff is repeated, it isn't going to make "more" sense.

JMO

 

[otto]

When the purpose of heading out on the road is for a biz trip to make a sales pitch hours away, the logical thing to do is get as close to the meeting as possible to avoid any problems with travel so one isn't late to the appointment the next morning. This wasn't a vacation jaunt. Why incur an overnight hotel stay 2.5 hrs away. Not logical.

There's always a reason why people are late when they are late, but a potential customer is not to be kept waiting and professional business people know that. This wasn't JY's first sales job. It doesn't make a good impression when a sales rep is late to an appointment and yes, it was avoidable because he could have gotten closer to his appointment.

JY chose to get on the road, stop for dinner an hour later rather than eat free Italian food brought by SS to his house, decided to stop just over the VA border at a hotel, which still put him in striking distance to getting back to Raleigh, rather than be closer to his appointment. And then he was late to the appointment.

It can be spun every which way (as I'm sure it has) but that's what he did. And, most importantly, it was enough time for him to be able to get back to his house and commit a murder and get back to the Hampton Inn.

Sure ... and Jason got as close to the meeting as he could without driving an unfamiliar winding road in the middle of the night. He did the normal, "logical" thing.

So what if Jason was 30 minutes late for the meeting. It didn't present any problems for anyone except people that want him imprisoned for murder. He was late for the meeting because there was road construction. Because of the road construction, he ended up on the wrong road going in the wrong direction. He figured out the problem and arrived at the meeting. Would it be better if he had been lost on the wrong road going in the wrong direction at 2AM?

There is no reason to spin the facts. There is absolutely nothing strange about his decisions. I'm sure that other people have made the same decisions without being subjected to criticism.

 

[sunshine05]

When the purpose of heading out on the road is for a biz trip to make a sales pitch hours away, the logical thing to do is get as close to the meeting as possible to avoid any problems with travel so one isn't late to the appointment the next morning. This wasn't a vacation jaunt. Why incur an overnight hotel stay 2.5 hrs away. Not logical.

There's always a reason why people are late when they are late, but a potential customer is not to be kept waiting and professional business people know that. This wasn't JY's first sales job. It doesn't make a good impression when a sales rep is late to an appointment and yes, it was avoidable because he could have gotten closer to his appointment.

JY chose to get on the road, stop for dinner an hour later rather than eat free Italian food brought by SS to his house, decided to stop just over the VA border at a hotel, which still put him in striking distance to getting back to Raleigh, rather than be closer to his appointment. And then he was late to the appointment.

It can be spun every which way (as I'm sure it has) but that's what he did. And, most importantly, it was enough time for him to be able to get back to his house and commit a murder and get back to the Hampton Inn.

I don't think anyone has even emphasized how difficult that route is, up into Virginia off Route 52/now 74. It is a very rough drive. I couldn't imagine doing it twice in one night.

I just don't see anything odd about driving until 11PM and completing the rest of the trip in the morning since his appointment wasn't until, what, 9:30 or so.

I don't see anything at all unusual about where he chose to stop and I don't consider a stay in Hillsville to be convenient to home.

 

[tarheellvr]

The hose wasn't just dripping....it was slowly running, enough so that water puddled all over the surrounding ground. Trash bags were on the kitchen counter as well.

As for the trip.......I'm simply tired of debating this issue as well as other issues. That's why I don't post much any more. It's just become a back and forth exchange and everything has been beaten to the ground. Those of us here know how and why we feel and believe the way we do. Those, like myself, believe this trip was planned and JY intended to end the life of his wife and unborn son. He though he was smart.......but he ultimately got caught. It took more time than planned because Michelle didn't die quickly and he had to deal with Cassidy. He thought he could sneak in the house....of course Mr G didn;t bark......murder Michelle and quietly and quickly leave. Michelle altered this plan as well as his time.

I believe JY did this horrific act to his wife and unborn child. I can never forget the OVERKILL that went on for some time. He thought Michelle would die quickly, but she fought and fought all the while knowing this man, the father of her children, her husband was trying to take her life and ultimately he did indeed to this. He strangled her....just so she would die. Oh poor Michelle.....what must have been going through her mind as she fought her sadistic, evil husband. If she saw Cassidy her fear must have been a fear I can't even fathom.

RIP Michelle and Rylan.......I believe with every fiber of my being JY will stay right where he is and I hope and pray he suffers each and every day of his life.

 

[JusticeFever]

I fundamentally believe that the jurors followed their sworn duties, despite the difficulties in doing so. It is human nature to assume that the prosecution would only bring a case to trial if they believed that the person was guilty, and it is extraordinarily difficult for jurors to overcome this bias, yet they do it. It is the prosecution (and LE) that should be more focused on determining the actual killers versus ensuring that someone gets blamed for the crime. The MO for LE seems to be to create a hypothesis for the crime and then see if they can make the evidence fit the hypothesis. What they should be doing is following the evidence and letting that lead them to the killer. In both the Young and Cooper cases, LE basically discounted (and thus did not investigate) evidence that did not fit with their hypothesis that the husband did it.

When solving a murder by putting an innocent person in jail is superior to an unsolved murder, then our justice system has some problems.

I agree, in both the Cooper and Young cases, the state went to great lengths to discount any testimony that would not fit their timelines or theories. Up until the last minute in the Young case, they were still trying to find a motive by issuing more search warrants into their finances.