Jason Young to get new trial

[Madeleine74]

It isn't only her "excited utterances" though. She was directly witnessed in her specific behaviors at the daycare. No one was asking her to describe her mother's death. No one was talking to about her mother or the fact that her mother was dead. She initiated the play all on her own. And the fact there were 2 separate witnesses who saw her play, watched what she did, heard what she said, that is admissible under the law.

Any jury member who watches that would realize little CY was in the house, was not injured, saw something, and was able to recreate what appears to be an attack on her mommy. And they would have to be curious about the fact that CY was not injured and, in fact, she was taken care of to some extent.

I agree little CY needed counseling. Since the Young's whisked her away the day after the daycare incident, I wonder if her father ever bothered getting her the necessary emotional assistance? Afterall, she was in their care and total control from that point and then until 2009.

 

[sunshine05]

You guys/gals seem to be struggling some. Reminds me of the Knox thread.

1st there is no inventory. There was. Now it changes to the search warrent wasn't legal.


Next they didn't check MY's shoes. Really???

Do you think she just jumped right in it? Don't you think she would try to avoid it?

Now we move on to the child not being scared or telling that the dad did it. Really?

How can the dog leave with MF... but not have been in the house?

I think both are true - there wasn't a complete inventory as items remained in the Explorer and the search warrant describing visible blood in the vehicle was a lie.

Re: MF's shoes and the lack of blood - no, I don't think she would have been trying to avoid getting blood on her shoes in a life/death situation. Who cares about your clothing when you're family member is hurt? I think she didn't have any blood on her because she did not touch the body. Why? She already knew she was gone. How? That remains a mystery.

CY wasn't scared. If she had seen her father committing the crime, she would have been scared.

The dog - Right, how could the dog leave with MF but not have been in the house? That's a big discrepancy. It's impossible for him to have been in the house as she claimed and not to have gotten into the blood and transferred it around the house.

 

[sunshine05]

I don't know anything about her shoes, either. If they had been seized and examined, the results would have been entered into evidence by the side the results supported.

I doubt the blood was dry on the carpet but it is also irrelevant because dry or not it would have left trace evidence on shoes. Even bone dry dirt leaves behind trace evidence. But the shoes first have to be collected as evidence before any testing can begin......and around it goes.

JMO

They were collected but not right away. No blood.

 

[sunshine05]

It isn't only her "excited utterances" though. She was directly witnessed in her specific behaviors at the daycare. No one was asking her to describe her mother's death. No one was talking to about her mother or the fact that her mother was dead. She initiated the play all on her own. And the fact there were 2 separate witnesses who saw her play, watched what she did, heard what she said, that is admissible under the law.

Any jury member who watches that would realize little CY was in the house, was not injured, saw something, and was able to recreate what appears to be an attack on her mommy. And they would have to be curious about the fact that CY was not injured and, in fact, she was taken care of to some extent.

I agree little CY needed counseling. Since the Young's whisked her away the day after the daycare incident, I wonder if her father ever bothered getting her the necessary emotional assistance? Afterall, she was in their care and total control from that point and then until 2009.

Don't you think he had a right to whisk his daughter away?

Re: the daycare reenactment - Even if we are to believe that CY witnessed the crime - it isn't evidence against JY as she selected two female dolls and hit them together. Is that not suggesting a female was involved in this? Cindy B. did see a female in the SUV at 5:30AM.

Also, immediately after she said "Mommy's getting a spanking for biting", she said " Mommy fell on the floor. Now she's on the bed with animals, animals were in the barn, they were asleep. There was a cow. Daddy bought me new fruit snacks."

I don't see how anyone can derive that JY harmed MY from that.

 

[MyBelle]

They were collected but not right away. No blood.

so either she didn't get close to Michelle's body or she washed her shoes or changed them.

This case is filled with stuff that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[sunshine05]

so either she didn't get close to Michelle's body or she washed her shoes or changed them.

This case is filled with stuff that makes absolutely no sense.

I think it's the latter. That would mean that she already knew before she placed the call - sometime before when she would have been wearing different shoes. Don't forget there is time that is unaccounted for that early morning.

 

[MyBelle]

Don't you think he had a right to whisk his daughter away?

Re: the daycare reenactment - Even if we are to believe that CY witnessed the crime - it isn't evidence against JY as she selected two female dolls and hit them together. Is that not suggesting a female was involved in this? Cindy B. did see a female in the SUV at 5:30AM.

Also, immediately after she said "Mommy's getting a spanking for biting", she said " Mommy fell on the floor. Now she's on the bed with animals, animals were in the barn, they were asleep. There was a cow. Daddy bought me new fruit snacks."

I don't see how anyone can derive that JY harmed MY from that.

When was Michelle's funeral and when did this "play" at daycare take place, do you recall?

 

[sunshine05]

You're assuming she saw the whole attack, and not just part of it or only the aftermath. We know CY saw "lots of red stuff" (i.e. blood) we know she said "mommy was spanked for biting," but neither of those utterances necessary tell exactly what CY saw. She play acted out one doll hitting the other doll (in her recreation she used a chair as a weapon), so she probably saw something, but how much we don't know. The point is, the murderer is someone who loved and cared about CY and even if she did witness the attack, the killer did not harm the one living witness nor the one dog. That someone loved both.

The assertion CY would have been terrified of her father when he arrived in Raleigh had he done that crime is based on your personal opinion and assumption, and not on any evidence in this case. You have absolutely no idea how CY would have (or should have) acted in any situation, let alone the situation the child was in. Saying something "should be" a certain way and if it isn't that way then it proves something else is an illogical argument and it's based solely on imagination.

Although if one wants to retain that same logic and apply it across the board, then I suppose the same conclusion would hold true since CY wasn't afraid of her auntie MF either and clung to her when MF found her hiding under the covers. I guess that is (more) proof MF didn't commit the murder of her sister.

You are correct that nobody knows what she saw. In fact, we don't even know that the killer was someone who loved her, do we? Aren't you making an assumption?

"MF found her under the covers and then she clung to her..." Allegedly. We really don't know as there were three version of how CY was found. I doubt she was even in the bedroom when she placed the call.

 

[sunshine05]

When was Michelle's funeral and when did this "play" at daycare take place, do you recall?

I'm not sure how many days later the funeral occurred but the daycare play was 6 days after the murder.

 

[sunshine05]

Also,and, I am not positive without looking it up, but wasn't this the case where the body was not transported to the morgue and not seen by a medical examiner until a day or 2 later?

Yes, I looked it up. 11/04/06 11:30 AM.Dr, Kevin Gerity and Dr. Kevin Greene

I read an article not long ago about how the ME's in NC are completely overwhelmed with cases. It's a shame because TOD can be determined based on body temperature, looking at the eyes, other things but it needs to be done right when the body is found. Waiting a day made it more difficult to narrow down the TOD.

 

[JusticeFever]

I read an article not long ago about how the ME's in NC are completely overwhelmed with cases. It's a shame because TOD can be determined based on body temperature, looking at the eyes, other things but it needs to be done right when the body is found. Waiting a day made it more difficult to narrow down the TOD.

Also, contents of stomach, etc.
Btw, Michelle's funeral was Nov 9th, 2006.

 

[MyBelle]

Also, contents of stomach, etc.
Btw, Michelle's funeral was Nov 9th, 2006.

so the daycare "play" was around the same time as her funeral? I wonder if CY's reference to seeing Michelle in "bed" was actually a reference to the funeral or visitation and seeing personal items that reflected Michelle's interests and life and she was trying to put it all together in a way that made sense to her. Children that young really have no way to understand death and rituals surrounding it.

 

[tarheellvr]

Do you really believe that he planned this in advance - to drive 170 miles in the middle of the night to strangle his wife to death? If his intent was to strangle her, how did he think to wear all the gear to protect himself from the blood that he didn't know he would be getting all over himself?

To me this crime seems like it wasn't planned, someone attacked MY but I just can't fathom that anyone would plan something so shoddily.

I keep thinking about how Shelly sensed that someone was watching them. That means someone was watching for her to leave at 9-10PM or so. JY was at the Cracker Barrel.

yes, I do........I believe he planned it, drove 170 miles to slaughter his wife because he wanted Michelle dead. He told Ryan? if they divorced he'd never see Cassidy....

I believe he not only strangled her, but beat her savagely!! I also believe he resented, detested, didn't love Michelle.....of course we know from testimony he certainly didn't respect her in the least. He humiliated her....the way he publicly talked to her, demeaned her....I will never forget the testimony about his "penis tricks". Poor, poor Michelle...

I believe Cassidy saw something, what or how much I'm not sure. Children DO go with parents who have beaten their Mommy or hell, even them!! Psychologists and educators see this all the time.

 

[Boodles]

You're assuming she saw the whole attack, and not just part of it or only the aftermath. We know CY saw "lots of red stuff" (i.e. blood) we know she said "mommy was spanked for biting," but neither of those utterances necessary tell exactly what CY saw. She play acted out one doll hitting the other doll (in her recreation she used a chair as a weapon), so she probably saw something, but how much we don't know. The point is, the murderer is someone who loved and cared about CY and even if she did witness the attack, the killer did not harm the one living witness nor the one dog. That someone loved both.

The assertion CY would have been terrified of her father when he arrived in Raleigh had he done that crime is based on your personal opinion and assumption, and not on any evidence in this case. You have absolutely no idea how CY would have (or should have) acted in any situation, let alone the situation the child was in. Saying something "should be" a certain way and if it isn't that way then it proves something else is an illogical argument and it's based solely on imagination.

Although if one wants to retain that same logic and apply it across the board, then I suppose the same conclusion would hold true since CY wasn't afraid of her auntie MF either and clung to her when MF found her hiding under the covers. I guess that is (more) proof MF didn't commit the murder of her sister.

Thanks was not enough. :goodpost:

 

[Boodles]

I believe JY never expected a fight. He thought Michelle would be asleep.

As for his plan being shoddy, he hung the first jury, didn't he? He made sure he had an "I was out of town" alibi when Michelle was beaten to death, didn't he? He did not speak to LE ever, did he? Thus, he never got himself locked into a story. He got to see everything
LE had against him through discovery and the prosecution's direct case before presenting any defense. For being not a smart guy, he strategized this murder pretty well, IMO.

 

[sunshine05]

so the daycare "play" was around the same time as her funeral? I wonder if CY's reference to seeing Michelle in "bed" was actually a reference to the funeral or visitation and seeing personal items that reflected Michelle's interests and life and she was trying to put it all together in a way that made sense to her. Children that young really have no way to understand death and rituals surrounding it.

It is my understanding that CY did not attend the funeral or funeral home.

 

[sunshine05]

yes, I do........I believe he planned it, drove 170 miles to slaughter his wife because he wanted Michelle dead. He told Ryan? if they divorced he'd never see Cassidy....

I believe he not only strangled her, but beat her savagely!! I also believe he resented, detested, didn't love Michelle.....of course we know from testimony he certainly didn't respect her in the least. He humiliated her....the way he publicly talked to her, demeaned her....I will never forget the testimony about his "penis tricks". Poor, poor Michelle...

I believe Cassidy saw something, what or how much I'm not sure. Children DO go with parents who have beaten their Mommy or hell, even them!! Psychologists and educators see this all the time.

You "believe" all of this with no evidence to support this belief. There is nothing to indicate that he ever left the hotel.

 

[sunshine05]

Also, contents of stomach, etc.
Btw, Michelle's funeral was Nov 9th, 2006.

Actually, undigested food was found in her stomach and I believe that points more to an earlier death than later (3AM or later). She ate at around 7PM and it takes about 6 hours max to digest a heavy meal, so say 1AM but there was still food present. If she was killed after midnight, she likely ate more food sometime after Shelly left. It's just one more piece of CE that points away from JY.

 

[Madeleine74]

You are correct that nobody knows what she saw. In fact, we don't even know that the killer was someone who loved her, do we? Aren't you making an assumption?

"MF found her under the covers and then she clung to her..." Allegedly. We really don't know as there were three version of how CY was found. I doubt she was even in the bedroom when she placed the call.

Someone took the time to care for CY after her mother was murdered. I reasonably believe it was the killer who did so. I believe, based on the totality of the evidence presented, beyond a reasonable doubt, the killer is her father.

Interesting how everything and anything that negatively implicates JY must be a lie or fabricated. And every action MF took and detailed on the witness stand is deemed to be a lie as well. Nothing objective about that. The patina of conspiracy is well worn. ("it doesn't make sense" and "therefore it didn't happen").

 

[sunshine05]

Someone took the time to care for CY after her mother was murdered. I reasonably believe it was the killer who did so. I believe, based on the totality of the evidence presented, beyond a reasonable doubt, the killer is her father.

Interesting how everything and anything that negatively implicates JY must be a lie or fabricated. And every action MF took and detailed on the witness stand is deemed to be a lie as well. Nothing objective about that. The patina of conspiracy is well worn. ("it doesn't make sense" and "therefore it didn't happen").

He couldn't have cleaned her up. She was found clean, dry, not hungry, not thirsty 15+ hours after she would have been put to bed. It just doesn't make any sense. Just because MF testified about it, doesn't make it so. Her story was ever changing. I really don't understand why you don't see the red flags with her. How do you ignore a witness blindly describing a woman who fits her description exactly at the scene that morning? Why are her keys on the hood of MY's Lexus? Why no blood on her clothing? Why three versions of how she found C.? Why do you accept it so easily? We deserve to have these things investigated and answered. These are people's lives.

Are you suggesting that "it happened this way" must be accepted even if it doesn't make sense? This is how wrongful convictions occur. People put blinders on to logic and common sense and let the State have their "win" without evidence.