Jason Young to get new trial

[Madeleine74]

And, the reason for the search warrant was because they saw blood in his SUV? We all know that wasn't true either.

Seriously? Is it that confusing to understand the SW process? You cannot legally touch any person's private possessions without their oral/written permission or a search warrant signed by a judge. (see US Constitution). You can't see fully into a vehicle to even know if there would be blood somewhere in there, like down in the carpet or under a seat, without examining a vehicle in detail, in a protected facility, with the necessary lighting and chemicals and whatever tools they use. You have to have legal permission to seize and tow a vehicle. You have to obtain a SW first because anything you find without permission or a SW would not be allowed as evidence.

 

[sunshine05]

Also, there were two pairs of slip on brown shoes in the Explorer and they only collected one of them so they certainly didn't collect everything from the vehicle.

 

[JusticeFever]

So, they said they saw blood in his SUV to get a search warrant, even though they didn't? Got it!!
And, no need to be so rude.


ETA:
"According to search warrants released by Raleigh Police, a drop of blood was found on the rear driver's seat of the vehicle, and on the exterior's driver's side rear door",

And, that is how they got their warrant , only there was no blood, even though they released that information to the press.

 

[MyBelle]

They did check her shoes some time later. No blood. There should have been blood based on how the scene was described.

A check done later was a waste of time because there is no way to prove what shoes she was wearing when she found the body. To me, it is no different than waiting more than a year to find clothes that should have been inventories when JY's car was seized.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

So, they said they saw blood in his SUV to get a search warrant, even though they didn't? Got it!!
And, no need to be so rude.

Probable cause is supposed to be based on a foundation of truth and there sure has been a dearth of truth in the investigative process of this case.
JMO

 

[JusticeFever]

Probable cause is supposed to be based on a foundation of truth and there sure has been a dearth of truth in the investigative process of this case.
JMO

I understand that they needed a reason to seize and search his vehicle, they were waiting for him to get back to Raleigh, I just don't know if they could have got one, without saying they saw blood.

 

[MyBelle]

I understand that they needed a reason to seize and search his vehicle, they were waiting for him to get back to Raleigh, I just don't know if they could have got one, without saying they saw blood.

They wouldn't have had probable cause to search it if they had not said they saw blood. Which just goes to show they had a razor focus on Jason and only Jason from the very beginning.

JMO

 

[JusticeFever]

They wouldn't have had probable cause to search it if they had not said they saw blood. Which just goes to show they had a razor focus on Jason and only Jason from the very beginning.

JMO

Thank you and I do understand. So, they released this information to the press which in turn released it to the public, and then just left it out there. Then they went looking for witnesses to collaborate the rest to fit Jason. At first,Terry Tiller stated it was between 4-5 am when she saw a car, and said it was in the driveway in a loading position. Then she says it was more like 3:30 am, and it was in front of the house. Then we have Gracie, who out of all the gas stations in the world, says Jason wandered into hers, and who can place him in King's NC with nothing other than a cash receipt and her word, although to this day the person who she said was a regular customer and came in every am, has never been found. But, Cindy Beaver and Mrs. Hemsley who lived in the neighborhood and both saw the same kind of car around 5:30 , one that could Michelle's, btw, did not fit the state's timeline and so they don't count.
I got it, trust me, I got it.

 

[otto]

So, they said they saw blood in his SUV to get a search warrant, even though they didn't? Got it!!
And, no need to be so rude.


ETA:
"According to search warrants released by Raleigh Police, a drop of blood was found on the rear driver's seat of the vehicle, and on the exterior's driver's side rear door",

And, that is how they got their warrant , only there was no blood, even though they released that information to the press.

That's right. Police need probable cause to obtain a search warrant. The stated that they saw blood, and that was justification for the search warrant. There was no blood, so the grounds for the warrant were false and presumably the results of the search should be excluded ... but I guess it doesn't really work that way.

 

[jova33]

That's right. Police need probable cause to obtain a search warrant. The stated that they saw blood, and that was justification for the search warrant. There was no blood, so the grounds for the warrant were false and presumably the results of the search should be excluded ... but I guess it doesn't really work that way.

They seized his vehicle the night he came back. The warrant was signed at 3 am? Ok.... they weren't focused on JY from the get go? Why was there no warrant for MF's vehicle immediately? I believe they did get a warrant for her car months later. Makes no sense.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[otto]

I'm curious about the child and how verbal she was. I have heard her in the background on the phone call, and I can't make too much out of what she says. However, in the last couple of weeks I've spent a lot of time with three young children. There is a two and a half year old child who is completely verbal. He speaks in full sentences, makes interesting observations, has no problem pronouncing words and letters. It has been said that Michelle's daughter was completely verbal. Are there any examples of her verbally interacting with others prior to her mother's murder? I'd like to get a sense of her verbal skills at the time in order to put the background sounds she makes in some sort of context.

 

[jova33]

I'm curious about the child and how verbal she was. I have heard her in the background on the phone call, and I can't make too much out of what she says. However, in the last couple of weeks I've spent a lot of time with three young children. There is a two and a half year old child who is completely verbal. He speaks in full sentences, makes interesting observations, has no problem pronouncing words and letters. It has been said that Michelle's daughter was completely verbal. Are there any examples of her verbally interacting with others prior to her mother's murder? I'd like to get a sense of her verbal skills at the time in order to put the background sounds she makes in some sort of context.

I think there's a home video of the family, but I'm not sure how old CY was in it. Kids 1-3 go through so many milestones and developmental changes it'd be hard to determine what CY meant.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[tarheellvr]

I think there's a home video of the family, but I'm not sure how old CY was in it. Kids 1-3 go through so many milestones and developmental changes it'd be hard to determine what CY meant.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

Children are also the most honest and straightforward humans on this planet.........as an educator I'd say Cassidy's verbal skills were advanced for her age........

Cassidy spoke very well........"Mommy got boo-boos everywhere.........


RIP Michelle and Rylan

 

[oenophile]

Would you have any qualms about sitting a killer free?

No, not if I had reasonable doubt as to his guilt. I want to be reasonably certain that the person I'm putting away is actually guilty of the crime. This means that despite whatever prejudices I have, or whatever statistics say, the person is presumed innocent even if they are actually guilty.

It's funny, I was just speaking with a lawyer friend of mine who wants to work in the Wake County DA's office. I was talking about these recent cases, and he explained to me, in a very reasoned way, that the probability that the husband did it makes it reasonable to infer motive, and therefore pursue the husband for the crime. We got into a pretty intense argument as to this point. But I think it demonstrates the poison that has infected the DA office.

If you come from the point of view that anyone could have killed MY, then let the evidence lead you to the killer, then I'm convinced where the evidence leads. If you assume that JY killed MY, then construct the evidence that makes him look guilty, then I have doubts in the process and the conclusion.

 

[jova33]

No, not if I had reasonable doubt as to his guilt. I want to be reasonably certain that the person I'm putting away is actually guilty of the crime. This means that despite whatever prejudices I have, or whatever statistics say, the person is presumed innocent even if they are actually guilty.

It's funny, I was just speaking with a lawyer friend of mine who wants to work in the Wake County DA's office. I was talking about these recent cases, and he explained to me, in a very reasoned way, that the probability that the husband did it makes it reasonable to infer motive, and therefore pursue the husband for the crime. We got into a pretty intense argument as to this point. But I think it demonstrates the poison that has infected the DA office.

If you come from the point of view that anyone could have killed MY, then let the evidence lead you to the killer, then I'm convinced where the evidence leads. If you assume that JY killed MY, then construct the evidence that makes him look guilty, then I have doubts in the process and the conclusion.

Especially when there's evidence that he wasn't even there.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[JusticeFever]

That's right. Police need probable cause to obtain a search warrant. The stated that they saw blood, and that was justification for the search warrant. There was no blood, so the grounds for the warrant were false and presumably the results of the search should be excluded ... but I guess it doesn't really work that way.

You are right, Otto, although I guess there were other ways to impound his vehicle, not sure.
It's more than that, though. It is the release of information that was not true. "Blood Found in Husband's SUV".......the average person who sees that and doesn't follow the case any more after than that, just assumes the person is guilty. So, how does anyone get a fair trial after that? Boggles.

 

[Landonsmom02]

What about the fingernail scratches on MY's neck?

Edit: and what lights?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

As has been said before, it was HER fingernails marks trying to get his hands off her neck. JY didn't expect to have her fight back. His initial plan,imo, was to strangle her. When this didn't go his way he beat her. All that rage he had for her finally came out. He hit her over and over and over and over......

 

[Landonsmom02]

They did check her shoes some time later. No blood. There should have been blood based on how the scene was described.

*Respectfully snipped*

By the time MY was found the blood was dry. It wouldn't leave tracks by then. It was many hours later when she was found.

 

[Landonsmom02]

Good point. Remember on the 911 call she refused to check for vitals, just said she's dead. Then when she finally did kinda check, she just said she's cold.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

Nowhere in the 911 call did she refuse to check for vitals. MY was stiff and cold, after touching her and saying she is cold the operator to her not to continue.

 

[Landonsmom02]

They seized his vehicle the night he came back. The warrant was signed at 3 am? Ok.... they weren't focused on JY from the get go? Why was there no warrant for MF's vehicle immediately? I believe they did get a warrant for her car months later. Makes no sense.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

I don't see what is so hard to understand. IF, your spouse is murdered, you are the first to be looked at. It's normal. They work there way from immediate family first then out to close friends and family. If JY was innocent and cooperated then, maybe, the "real killers" could have been found. The point is that he cast the suspicion on himself. I don't get where this "they had their mind made up from day one" comes from. They were doing the normal routine in a murder investigation! Once again, common sense!