Jason Young to get new trial

[Landonsmom02]

She was only in the daycare for a half day after the murder, so who described her as withdrawn? Why is it significant? Her mother was gone ... naturally a child would be trying to process that information one way or another.

BBM

The daycare worker did when she testified. Please don't twist my words. I was simply pointing out, from your comment, about her seeing other kids biting and that is where she got the idea of "biting" from, that she wasn't playing with other kids that day. Yes you are right about processing the information. She re-enacted what she saw.

 

[otto]

*Respectfully snipped & BBM*

Otto, have to disagree with you there.
A lot of kids "bite".
Just google "biting toddlers" and see how many hits you get!
Here is a bit from WebMD-

"Biting is a normal part of childhood development. Young children bite for many different reasons, from teething to seeing what reaction it will provoke. Many children between the ages of 1 and 3 go through a biting phase which they eventually outgrow."

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/stop-children-from-biting

There is always one or two in daycare who are known biters.
Just speaking from personal experience.

So it is possible that another child was spanked for biting on the day that Michelle's child was using two dolls to demonstrate that biting results in spanking.

 

[Madeleine74]

Hi Landonsmom!

JY's sales appointment was actually something like 5 hrs away from Raleigh. Yet he only went halfway and spent the night. Just far enough to be "out of the state" and yet still within a drivable distance back to Raleigh. Makes you wonder why a guy whose sole purpose for taking that trip was a sales call 5 hrs away would not stay overnight closer to his appointment. And then he was 30+ minutes late getting to this important sales call the next morning. And then, he didn't have any other sales calls scheduled, which is really odd since he was going to be hours away allegedly on business and in his territory. Curious.

 

[MyBelle]

Biting is not common amongst young children. I was not bitten as a child, I did not bite other children as a child, and my children did not bite each other or other children.

We don't know what the daycare employees said, and how they were instructed to testify. What we do know is that the daycare employees were well aware of the fact that Michelle was murdered, and that they may have been predisposed to interpret any type of child's play as related to the murder. For example, if the child had banged a stick on the ground, would the employees have asked her: "is that what happened to your mommy?" Did they specifically ask about "mommy" and that's why the child included "mommy" in her biting/spanking story? We'll never know the answer to that because even if it did happen, the daycare employees cannot admit that and still participate in the murder trial.

I agree with you. I think CY's interpretation was based on the fact that she knew biting was wrong and therefore discipline would result.

I doubt the child had ever been exposed to the degree of violence that she had witnessed via television or any media. I'm betting the only "bad" thing she had observed at daycare was biting. CY was trying to make sense of her mother's murder in her own little mind. If she did this in front of daycare workers, it is entirely possible she also made comments in front of others that contained a better description of the killer. So, the prosecution opened the door, the appellate court agreed to leave that door open.

The next trial should be quite interesting.

 

[Nymeria]

So it is possible that another child was spanked for biting on the day that Michelle's child was using two dolls to demonstrate that biting results in spanking.

I know next to nothing of this case.
I have been following so many NC cases in the last year that I am just reading up on this one.
So I personally can not answer your question (in regards to CY).

I can say it seems weird that she said Daddy was spanking Mommy for biting though. Could be association, yeah.
But it also could be her trauma from seeing it bubbling up.

 

[otto]

BBM

The daycare worker did when she testified. Please don't twist my words. I was simply pointing out, from your comment, about her seeing other kids biting and that is where she got the idea of "biting" from, that she wasn't playing with other kids that day. Yes you are right about processing the information. She re-enacted what she saw.

I'm not twisting anything. The child was withdrawn from the daycare the day after she used two dolls to demonstrate that biting results in spanking. Between the murder and the day she was withdrawn, she spent a half day at the daycare.

There is nothing unusual about a child of a murdered mother to be reflective a couple of days after the murder. If a child was not reflective, one might suspect that something was wrong with the child's psychological balance.

It's a huge leap to believe that when a two year old pretends/imagines/plays that biting results in spanking, it is a statement about an actual murder. If that were true, police should spend a lot more time at daycares, where children routinely act out all sorts of strange interpretations of reality.

 

[otto]

I know next to nothing of this case.
I have been following so many NC cases in the last year that I am just reading up on this one.
So I personally can not answer your question (in regards to CY).

I can say it seems weird that she said Daddy was spanking Mommy for biting though. Could be association, yeah.
But it also could be her trauma from seeing it bubbling up.

The child did not say anything about her father. She only stated that one doll was spanked by the other doll for biting. One of the dolls represented a "mommy" doll.

 

[MyBelle]

So it is possible that another child was spanked for biting on the day that Michelle's child was using two dolls to demonstrate that biting results in spanking.

Otto, I think that is probably what happened. I don't believe CY or Michelle were actually "biters." CY was trying to put what happened into a context she understood. iirc, during this play she was talking to herself and the dolls.

If nothing else, it underscores what many had wondered: that she likely witnessed the actual attack on her mother. How horrific for that child. My heart goes out to her.

If she had witnessed her father as the perp, she most certainly would have later asked him, "why did Mommy bite you?" There is no evidence she blamed her father in any way for what happened to her mother.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm not twisting anything. The child was withdrawn from the daycare the day after she used two dolls to demonstrate that biting results in spanking. Between the murder and the day she was withdrawn, she spent a half day at the daycare.

There is nothing unusual about a child of a murdered mother to be reflective a couple of days after the murder. If a child was not reflective, one might suspect that something was wrong with the child's psychological balance.

It's a huge leap to believe that when a two year old pretends/imagines/plays that biting results in spanking, it is a statement about an actual murder. If that were true, police should spend a lot more time at daycares, where children routinely act out all sorts of strange interpretations of reality.

BBM. ITA. And if the child was reflective at daycare, it is likely she was reflective elsewhere. A lot of huge leaps were taken in this case and it resulted in an unfair trial. I don't believe cops ever had a trained specialist interview CY but perhaps JY or MF did. Her health records can be subpoenaed.

 

[otto]

BBM. ITA. And if the child was reflective at daycare, it is likely she was reflective elsewhere. A lot of huge leaps were taken in this case and it resulted in an unfair trial. I don't believe cops ever had a trained specialist interview CY but perhaps JY or MF did. Her health records can be subpoenaed.

There is clear evidence that police had formed an opinion about the murder within hours of discovering the body and well before Jason arrived at the scene. His friends warned him to lawyer up before speaking to police, so something police said led family friends to believe that police were not open minded at the start of the investigation. They had a theory, and they pursued it.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think trying to put literal translations on a 2 yr old is problematic. CY had no idea what a bludgeoning was, yet that's what was happening to her mommy. She had no concept of death or dying. The killer may have told CY the biting reason to explain why, using the only concept she would understand at her young age. "Spanking" and "for biting." Those are the things a 2 year old would have been exposed to in relation to each other. That's what her mind could understand and process.

As for the daycare observances, that's just what they were. Two people witnessed CY's behaviors that day and also heard exactly what she said. She wasn't questioned beyond "Whatcha doin'?" Everything CY said and did was her own choice and initiated by her. Neither daycare worker made any interpretations other than to let CY's family know about what they observed that day. Wonder why JY took CY out of daycare right after that?

I don't know why the basic facts of this case often get repeated incorrectly over and over when all the information and then some is available on this site as well as other places. The trial video is still available online at WRAL. The facts aren't going to change.

 

[Sophieandme]

Not introducing the evidence re the civil suit/custody issue is not a worry for me at all considering I believe Jason is guilty of 1st degree murder (based on all other evidence introduced at both trials ...which I watched, gavel to gavel.)

No doubt that the incredible details surrounding what brought about the civil suit and Jason's lack of response was interesting, but is not needed to convict him again.

What made Jason's trials interesting was the fact that prior to him taking the stand in his first trial, he made no, none, nada statements to LE. Not even so much as an I didn't do it. As a result, when he took the stand in his own defense, the state had no idea what the hell he was going to say.

However, by the second trial, his prior testimony came back to haunt him. The state was finally able to investigate "his story" and compare to the evidence ... and he was convicted.

He will be convicted again without civil suit evidence. And throw out the daycare worker's reenactment for that matter....he'll still be convicted. He is a womanizer, misogynist, entitled, crude, arrogant murderer. I don't need a psychiatrist's testimony to come to this conclusion.

IMO

 

[MyBelle]

There is clear evidence that police had formed an opinion about the murder within hours of discovering the body and well before Jason arrived at the scene. His friends warned him to lawyer up before speaking to police, so something police said led family friends to believe that police were not open minded at the start of the investigation. They had a theory, and they pursued it.

Yes, the focus was on the husband whether he did it or not. The same thing happened in the Brad Cooper case. Several witnesses were totally ignored by cops. Now that they've been granted a new trial, I hope their friends will be more focal of their concerns about railroading.

One aspect that I wasn't aware of is that his silence to friends and family could be used against him. I thought the right to silence was all inclusive no matter who was asking the questions. I wonder if most citizens are aware it is not an absolute right. It sure sounds like Jason's attorneys didn't know it because they told him to talk to no one and he followed their instructions and was penalized for it.

JMO

 

[jova33]

Can anyone link to his testimony being torn apart? Seemed to me like they were just nit picking the tiniest details.

And not talking to the police is not an admission of guilt.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[MyBelle]

Can anyone link to his testimony being torn apart? Seemed to me like they were just nit picking the tiniest details.

And not talking to the police is not an admission of guilt.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

ITA. What I didn't know is that not talking to family and friends per advice from your attorney can be perceived as evidence of guilt . That truly was news to me.

 

[otto]

Yes, the focus was on the husband whether he did it or not. The same thing happened in the Brad Cooper case. Several witnesses were totally ignored by cops. Now that they've been granted a new trial, I hope their friends will be more focal of their concerns about railroading.

One aspect that I wasn't aware of is that his silence to friends and family could be used against him. I thought the right to silence was all inclusive no matter who was asking the questions. I wonder if most citizens are aware it is not an absolute right. It sure sounds like Jason's attorneys didn't know it because they told him to talk to no one and he followed their instructions and was penalized for it.

JMO

I was surprised to read that too. The suspect has a right to remain silent when questioned by investigators, and that silence cannot be used against him/her, but the suspect cannot remain silent when questioned by anyone else. That doesn't really make much sense because anyone befriend a suspect, ask pointed, personal questions, then state in court that the suspect refused to discuss the facts surrounding a criminal act ... and the court can assume that the suspect must be guilty. I don't think that there should be an expectation that a suspect should freely discuss criminal court related events with friends and family.

 

[otto]

Can anyone link to his testimony being torn apart? Seemed to me like they were just nit picking the tiniest details.

And not talking to the police is not an admission of guilt.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

The prosecutor completely dropped the ball in cross examination during the initial trial. It appeared that she did not prepare for the possibility that Jason would testify. In the second trial, witnesses testified in an attempt to refute video of Jason's testimony. For example, there was a question about whether Jason could have used a twig from a nearby bush to prop open a door. Doubt was cast on whether he could dislike cigarette smoke and still enjoy the occassional cigar.

 

[jova33]

I was in the army, and knew plenty of guys who smoked cigars but hated cigarettes. You don't inhale, or try not to, cigar smoke, so it's a different experience.
And you can use anything to prop those doors open.

It just seems like his fate shouldn't rest on him producing shoes he once owned three years prior to the murder, a timetable that had to be so precise, and some kids messing around with cameras at the hotel.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[MyBelle]

I was surprised to read that too. The suspect has a right to remain silent when questioned by investigators, and that silence cannot be used against him/her, but the suspect cannot remain silent when questioned by anyone else. That doesn't really make much sense because anyone befriend a suspect, ask pointed, personal questions, then state in court that the suspect refused to discuss the facts surrounding a criminal act ... and the court can assume that the suspect must be guilty. I don't think that there should be an expectation that a suspect should freely discuss criminal court related events with friends and family.

It doesn't make sense to me because anyone could testify what he told them and even if he said he was not guilty, they could testify about his demeanor and anything else that, to a jury, made him "look" guilty.

I'm still sorta flabbergasted at that piece of it. Since the State is going to appeal the court ruling, there might be an argument about that piece from the defense.

 

[MyBelle]

The prosecutor completely dropped the ball in cross examination during the initial trial. It appeared that she did not prepare for the possibility that Jason would testify. In the second trial, witnesses testified in an attempt to refute video of Jason's testimony. For example, there was a question about whether Jason could have used a twig from a nearby bush to prop open a door. Doubt was cast on whether he could dislike cigarette smoke and still enjoy the occassional cigar.

I think the prosecutor was incompetent and that the Judge liked her so he let the nonsense slide. The cigar stuff was ridiculous. My dad, husband, brothers all enjoy a cigar and a drink once in awhile--on our patio. Never in our house because it stinks. None of them is a cigarette smoker, but even if they were I would not allow smoking inside my home. A 2-year-old child lived in the Young household. No smoking in the house was just common sense. Evidence Daddy was a killer? GMAB.