State vs. Jason Lynn Young 02-29-12

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just don't see how any of those would benefit him in the commission of a murder. Or how it would benefit him more than it would a random person.

Nothing makes sense in the commission of a murder. Did he intend for her to wake up and see anything?

He had to deal with what occurred. The commission of the murder had nothing directly to do with CY. Other than she was there and woke up and then needed to be dealt with. So he did. He dealt with the situation as it unfolded. The murder had already occurred by the time he was dealing with an awake CY.
 
I get that... but what purpose does it serve HIM to clean her up? What does he gain from it? Why not leave her feet bloody and a diaper on her? Surely that's no worse than murdering her mother in front of her?
Contain the scene, maybe?
 
I doubt the ME would speculate on my theory - I think the attacker would have been planning to rape but then MY fought back so ferociously that things spiraled out of control. So there would be no sign of rape or even attempted rape from an ME's perspective.

The defense team is only defending JY; they don't have to present alternate theories.

I see what you're saying, but something to me that argues against that is that there is very little disturbed around MY to indicate a big struggle (no pictures, lamps, etc., knocked over). It seems like she was bashed to start with right there in the bed and never had a chance. Also, if one buys CB's testimony, then it was a boy-girl team. To me, whether JY did it or a stranger, it doesn't seem rape was the motive.

However, it isn't impossible that someone would stalk a beautiful woman and attack her when they saw they chance - it certainly happens too often.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74
Purpose that serves him?

- Contain the mess to the extent he could, with the time he had left. He obviously didn't want blood all over the place. Notice she was picked up and taken to her bathroom. Her mess was contained mostly in there, except for the areas she walked around in the MBR.
- Get her back to sleep and hopefully with no memory of what she saw by the time she was found
- take off soiled diaper so she wouldn't stay awake or wake up because of a soiled diaper (kids don't want to sit in dirty diapers)

Does that benefit him? I think it does.
I just don't see how any of those would benefit him in the commission of a murder. Or how it would benefit him more than it would a random person.

Are you serious? He didn't do it because it benefited him - she was his daughter! She surprised him and he reacted - that's it. A random killer probably would have killed Cassidy too, especially one who could kill a person in the way MY was murdered.
 
Exactly... He left her to roam around for 6 hrs.. Hmmm!!!

Well, if one believes the theory that he gave her medicine to go to sleep, then no, he wasn't leaving her to roam for 6 hours. He thought she would sleep long enough for Meredith to be alerted to get to the house for the papers and Meredith would find CY there.

JMO
 
I doubt the ME would speculate on my theory - I think the attacker would have been planning to rape but then MY fought back so ferociously that things spiraled out of control. So there would be no sign of rape or even attempted rape from an ME's perspective.

The defense team is only defending JY; they don't have to present alternate theories.
bbm
I don't understand where you're getting that MY fought back ferociously ? The ME said she only had defense wounds on her hands. My understanding of defense wounds is that is the victim covering their head while being struck repeatedly. I think (from all the blood in the bed, soaked completely thru the pillow) that Michelle was asleep when this attack first began, she had scratches on her neck from trying to pry hands off during strangulation attempt. Then the attacker began hitting her, I also think that there is no dna under her nails because JY had gloves on at least during part of this murder.
 
I don't have to believe JY never smoked a cigar to believe he didn't prop those doors open to smoke one the night his wife was murdered.

I don't have to believe JY never slept in a hotel to believe he left those doors propped open so he could be gone from the room without being traced.

I don't have to believe JY never got rid of a pair of shoes to believe he made up the story of his fairly recent but rare HP Orbitals being given away to avoid connection with those shoe prints in the bed room.

I don't have to believe JY lied about everything to see that he was willing to lie to insurance companies to collect money.

I don't have to believe Michelle was right about everything to believe JY treated her badly and openly exhibited his disdain for her.

I don't have to believe JY was totally broke to believe he was interested in more than the passing possibility of making Michelle's death both obligation ending and profitable.

I don't have to believe everyone in JY's family lies to understand they were misinformed by JY, just like his wife always was.

I don't have to believe JY was never funny or charming to believe he was concerned only about his own desires and impulses.

I don't have to believe JY killed a woman before to believe he did kill Michelle.

I do believe the things that were done to Michelle that night were done for the first time by whoever did them. I think that person had a reason. And I think that person is on trial.

Uhmmm .... uhhmm. so then, uhmmm, what is it that you do have to believe then, sir?
 
Does anyone else wonder why JY filed no claim of robbery/theft when the claim was filed for damage to the house ? His mom made a list of things missing for LE, yet no claim for a $14,000 ring and other jewelry PY stated was missing in her list ?
 
To all that feel NG I would like to understand if the following situations have believable explanations:

1. Leaving the hotel door propped as a courtesy to other hotel guests.

2. Preventing the exit door from locking by using a twig. I am not so concerned if this can be done as it has been proven true. What I really want to understand is that is it believable that due to the courteous act in situation 1 that JY decided not to use his key card for the exit door. Why would it not be expected that the key card to be carried with JY so that he could reenter the exit door without worrying about twigging the door.

3. JY had nothing to do with the camera being moved at this exit door. How believable is it that the camera is moved while he is smoking a cigar and therefore does not capture his reentry when he completed the cigar.

Perhaps you could indicate whether these 3 situations are believable to you? Or do you find these 3 situation unbelievable and feel NG because the PT did not produce a "smoking gun"

Thanks

Albert,

I agree with points 1 & 2, and I view JY as guilty. However, I still have trouble reconciling the camera's, camera angles and times.

1) Camera unplugged @ 11:20 PM
2) JY seen in lobby @11:58 and again moments later moving towards that 1st floor exit door that is now covered by an unplugged camera.

If 1 & 2 are correct when did JY unplug the camera and how did he do it. To unplug the camera he would have to do it from inside the hotel by coming down the stairs in FRONT of the very camera he's trying to unplug.

Later @ 6:35 AM the camera is pushed up presumably by JY coming in the door, behind the camera, and pushing towards the ceiling. And that makes sense. But the 11:20 PM camera unplugging is still bugging me on how he pulled it off. IMHO
 
Are you serious? He didn't do it because it benefited him - she was his daughter! She surprised him and he reacted - that's it. A random killer probably would have killed Cassidy too, especially one who could kill a person in the way MY was murdered.

Yep, I am serious. I don't think cleaning up CY is a calling card for JY. I think it's entirely possible that he did it. But I don't think you can say he's the only one who would have done it, and the person had to have cared for CY personally to do it.

Even random killers have susceptibilities. I read a case just last week where the criminal's weakness was children. If you told him children were going to be hurt because he didn't tell the truth, he would sob and tell the police anything.

Now, I am NOT suggesting that happened, but I am saying that we can't rule out other possibilities simply because CY was cared for, even if just by removing her diaper. Could have been a completely nefarious reason. The killer could have picked CY up to get her out of the way, not wanting to harm her, and left a bloody fingerprint on the diaper. Then he/she is forced to take the diaper with him. Same could have gone if it had been JY.
 
And yet, we know she was cleaned up! More likely JY to clean her up or some random killer?????

The way I look at it is that in the scheme of things, the blood on her feet is not going to hurt her whereas leaving her alone she could fall down the stairs or get hurt in some other way. Also since she was found in the master bedroom she could have easily gotten bloody again.

It also doesn't make sense to me that if JY did it, that he would have allowed her anywhere near the crime scene - so she would have been around the crime scene while he was still there if he cleaned her up. A random killer may have not realized that CY was there.
 
Redirect ends with reiterating (paraphrased):

CB said she wasn't sure it was that Friday, her statement had been bothering her ever since she talked to LE, and wanted to withdrawal every statement she ever made about the Young house.

Well I dont know about anyone else but if Ms. Beaver was a nosy woman and couldnt keep her mouth shut then I think the Friday was the 3rd.

Her supervisor would be off on Saturday and Sunday..so as soon as she came back from her off days (Sunday and Monday) he heard her talking about it the day she came back in after being off Sunday and Monday.

To me the State is worried the jury will believe Ms. Beaver and that is why they took all this rebuttal time trying to suppress what she said.

Now I do think JY is guilty but I have been a juror 5 times and to me the State tried too hard to discount her testimony and as a juror I would be wondering why.

I think she felt tremendous pressure from the police department and that is why she wanted to retract her entire statement.

And even Spivey admitted that some of the officers could see exactly what Ms. Beaver said she saw.

IMO
 
Why not call her that morning????
Distance himself from the crime.

Like when I was a teenager and I'd be waiting by the phone for a boy to call, and I'd hover my hand over the receiver on the first ring, but wait 4 so I didn't seem too eager. Same type of thing, IMO.
 
What does cleaning up CY mean? Wiped her feet? Her hands? Gave her a bath? Her footprints were all over. Can someone please explain this to me? I missed that part of the testimony. Who said she was cleaned up?

Also, how high/low was the camera from the ceiling? How tall is JY? I've been to many hotels in my life time and have never seen a camera that was low enough for someone to reach up and move it. I'd appreciate any clarification.

Thanks
 
And yet, we know she was cleaned up! More likely JY to clean her up or some random killer?????

I believe a random killer would not spend the extra time nor effort to clean up CY. It seems to me the RK would be more concerned with getting merchandise and heading out of there. Did he/she know when other house occupants would return?
 
The things that affect what JY cares about are what he pays attention to. He was concerned about his house, house value, taking a hit on the house. He talked to his mother and mentioned it to LF on the same day his wife is murdered. That tells me his house is on his mind in a major way.

So he did things to preserve his house, at least what he could do after he got his rage vented on his wife's head.

Contain his own mess to the MBR, use garbage bags (garbage bags were out on the kitchen counter), not mess up the downstairs at all, pick up CY and carry her to her bathroom (note he used her bathroom, not the master bath), use a hose outside, etc. Why a random murderer would care about containing a mess at that point makes no sense to me. Only the homeowner would care. Random perp who is not supposed to be there wants a quick exit. Something gets damaged or messed in his wake, is not his problem.

To me it's obvious his goal was:

1. Get in quietly, kill Michelle easily with a soft kill of strangulation, get out

2. Once the kill turned messy it was, get clothes, contain bloody clothes, don't track mess in house, don't track any evidence into car.

3. Once he realized CY was not only awake but in the room he added: contain CY mess, put CY in her bathroom, clean up CY enough to contain further mess, get CY back to bed and asleep.

4. Above all, don't get caught, don't talk, discard anything that can be discarded to tie to the murder, the scene, etc.

5. Get MF to house on pretense of picking up a computer page printout so she can get to CY and be the one to find body.
 
Missed the last 30 minutes of court session today. . .Re: Closing Arguments tomorrow, JY didnt take the stand, who goes first, last, rebuttal? Also, does anyone know of the charges, 1st degree, 2nd degree? TIA

Hey, maybe we’ll have an (Al Pacino). . .'And Justice for All', closing argument moment, lol
 
What does cleaning up CY mean? Wiped her feet? Her hands? Gave her a bath? Her footprints were all over. Can someone please explain this to me? I missed that part of the testimony. Who said she was cleaned up?

Also, how high/low was the camera from the ceiling? How tall is JY? I've been to many hotels in my life time and have never seen a camera that was low enough for someone to reach up and move it. I'd appreciate any clarification.

Thanks

The camera at the hotel at Hillsville? The old maintenance guy had testified that at 5 10 he could barely touch it, and that he got a step ladder to plug it back in. When I observed it in person last night, I definitely believe I could have touched it, and I'm also 5 10.
 
Distance himself from the crime.

Like when I was a teenager and I'd be waiting by the phone for a boy to call, and I'd hover my hand over the receiver on the first ring, but wait 4 so I didn't seem too eager. Same type of thing, IMO.

He could have called her @ 8 that morning.... That would have made more sense IMO anyways... He could have said hey Meredith ya know yesterday I was in a hurry & forgot those papers in the printer or hey M I just got up & realized I didnt have those papers could u please go get them...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
2,505
Total visitors
2,671

Forum statistics

Threads
599,702
Messages
18,098,421
Members
230,908
Latest member
Houndgirl2003
Back
Top