One of the friends of the family that packed up the house posted the information on message boards in 2007. I suppose the easiest way to refute that information is to look at the evidence that was collected. Did we see the child's socks and the bedsheets during trial? Since the socks were bloody, it's fair to assume that she was wearing socks after the murder. It's also fair to assume that someone other than the child removed the socks. There could very well be DNA on those socks. Were they tested? Wouldn't the socks represent a valuable evidence item, similar to the medicine bottle, that could connect a suspect to the murder?
Jason Young to get new trial
- Thread starter JusticeFever
- Start date
- Status
One of the friends of the family that packed up the house posted the information on message boards in 2007. I suppose the easiest way to refute that information is to look at the evidence that was collected. Did we see the child's socks and the bedsheets during trial? Since the socks were bloody, it's fair to assume that she was wearing socks after the murder. It's also fair to assume that someone other than the child removed the socks. There could very well be DNA on those socks. Were they tested? Wouldn't the socks represent a valuable evidence item, similar to the medicine bottle, that could connect a suspect to the murder?
Sounds to me like poor police work. They missed a tooth too.
Sent from your mom's smartphone
Exactly! Investigators failed to collect all the evidence of the body at the crime scene even though they had possession of the crime scene for days. If they did not carefully search for evidence in the bedroom, where they obviously missed a clearly visible tooth, what else did they miss? I have no doubt that investigators collected evidence that they thought would result in the conviction of the husband, but their job was to collect all visible evidence, invisible evidence, and keep an open mind until the evidence led to a logical conclusion. Missing the tooth automaticlly implies that other visible evidence was overlooked or ignored, and that other evidence could have implicated other suspects.
You would think they'd be interested in anything bloody. iirc, Michelle's hands indicated she did fight back. Pretty sloppy police work. They waited for over a year to look for other things such as shirt and shoes. Even if they had found them there was no chain of custody.
The biggest piece of evidence that seems to have been totally ignored is CY. I don't understand why. The 2-yr-old left alone in Ohio in the Cutts case was the biggest piece of evidence that police had. His excited utterances are what convicted his dad. But all the prosecution could come up with in the Young case is what daycare workers observed and even that doesn't implicate Jason. It's hard to believe she said nothing to her family in the aftermath. She was with Meredith for hours before Jason arrived home. This piece of it makes absolutely no sense.
Was that brought up at trial and I slept thru it? I'm shocked more wasn't made of it. Look at all the time, money and effort wasted looking at Jason rather than doing a proper investigation. What a travesty of justice for that little girl especially.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9732796/
In her testimony she says the hair was a partial match to MY. I'm on my phone, so it's kinda hard to look for the testimony video.
Sent from your mom's smartphone
JusticeFever
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 94
Did the prosecution ever zero in on a motive? B/c the insurance policy woudn't pay out on a murder and any large amount would just look extra suspicious.I never really knew what the motive was in this case.
TY. I am absolutely stunned. How on earth could a jury totally ignore this? From your link, not only was there the hair:
Michelle Hannon, a DNA analyst with the State Bureau of Investigation Crime Lab, testified that she tested a root from a piece of hair taken from the couple's bedroom that didn't match DNA profiles of either Michelle Young or Jason Young.
She also tested two cigarette butts one that defense attorneys say was found in the garage and another found in the doorway leading into the kitchen of the Young home that contained two different sets of DNA from unknown males.
A partial DNA profile from a jewelry box in the couple's bedroom also excluded Jason Young as a contributor to that sample.
I think their theory was the life insurance policy but it never made sense because the couple didn't have financial problems. Both had wonderful careers. Most young couples with resources do purchase life insurance when the babies start coming.
If the insurance was Jason's motive, why was he worried about not being able to afford the house? And wouldn't he wait until his son was born before murdering his wife for the money? There was no evidence presented that he didn't want his son born.
http://media.wral.com:1935/vod/_de...00-young6-1-576x324-15-768.mp4/playlist.m3u8
Her testimony
Edit: 2 unknown males' DNA from cigarettes. Unknown hair DNA. Unknown blood DNA on the tip of JY's shoe that was in the closet. Something isn't right here. For the JY is guilty crowd, can you explain this?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
bamacurious
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 1
Just read all 12 pages of this thread. While I realize that some people believe that certain ponies can poop rainbows, I don't happen to be one of them. After following and watching the first two trials, I really do believe this man is guilty of murdering his wife and their unborn child. (I especially remember the testimony regarding the visit to his "new girlfriend" in Orlando) But it is a moot point, and he will be judged again. I don't have a problem with that...but then, I don't live in North Carolina nor am I a taxpayer there. I not only feel sorry for the people there that have to pay for this...but also for the women who must feel that there is now freedom for men that want to get rid of their wives without paying for a divorce. And before y'all get snarky with me...it is only my opinion.
He's a cheater. That doesn't make him a murderer. I think there's just too much that doesn't add up. The evidence is a forced fit, and there's some parts that don't even work.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
I'm not following your point. Are you saying taxpayers should be upset because the guy is guilty? Because I think the taxpayers are more upset over the fact he didn't get a fair trial and neither did Brad Cooper. The fault is on the Judge, not the defendant.
It is impossible for me to judge a guy guilty when it looks more and more like he was railroaded and there is so much exculpatory evidence at the crime scene in the form of unidentified DNA.
Right? There's more evidence saying someone else was there than there is evidence that JY was there. The fuel receipts and gas mileage alone points to someone else
http://youtu.be/--Olb3pkoLw
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
The more I am reminded of this stuff, the more it is apparent that the jury wasn't impartial. They had their minds made up before the trial even started. They totally ignored evidence that pointed to someone else. This is starting to read like a John Grisham novel.
gajonka
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2011
- Messages
- 491
- Reaction score
- 2
Took off today = been watching wral.com Jason young trial footage all day ( the site is a nitemare, with a pop=up checker, grr...) Would love to get my paws on the e-mails...
Anyone know where we can have a look at some evidence...?
Love ya,
G
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 170
- Guests online
- 3,115
- Total visitors
- 3,285