State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-14-12

[calamityjane831]

How do they know this? If they are claiming that 3 genetic markers from the rock match him, I would thope they at least introduce the existence of the partial print, and the chance that it matches his?

They still might introduce it at this trial, but otherwise it seems like rumors spread to influence public opinion.

I don't know maybe... I talk with her and that is what she said. The partial print could not be admitted into trial, she was not trying to spread a rumor.

 

[Just the Fax]

I think the defense was trying to say that there was blood all over the place, blood spatters all over the walls, etc. The killer would likely have gotten at least some blood on him.

Since the autopsy report indicates that Michelle was strangled and beaten to death, the killer would have likely engaged in some sort of struggle with her.

It just seems very unlikely that Jason wouldn't have some sort of marks or blood spatters(which he would not be able to clean completely off) after such a brutal attack.

Not if you wore gloves and had a long sleeve, heavy garment.
See fran's post above...I agree 100%

 

[gracielee]

"Did you happen to find the baseball bat he used, and tested it for blood?"

 

[fredwomble]

cross. Going over photos of JY not shown by the pros. No scratches, cuts, bruises...

Feel like this must be shouted from the mountaintop. (I'm not fussing at you, I'm just tuning in to WRAL's coverage now.) That Jason Young had no scratches or blood emphasizes the surprise element and Young's own preparedness. It is no surprise at all that he had no scratches, just as it is no surprise that there is no blood in the vehicle. He changed clothes (missing shirt, hello), he disposed of them, very likely wrapped in multiple garbage bags. He was extremely careful. Of course there was no blood - the state should have stipulated to all of these things and maybe they did yesterday(?). There was never going to be direct evidence like blood or clothes because Jason Young took the time and planned this crime pretty meticulously.

But he also left enough of a trail that shows his guilt.

ETA: I'm holding out hope that the state has a gotcha moment here to spring. I admit I have a strong bias in this case, yet I hear nothing from the defense that comes close to raising a doubt; Klinkosum is a great advocate for his client, but you just cannot argue or question away 2 + 2. (Admittedly, something went wrong in first trial.)

 

[azwildcat]

I think the defense was trying to say that there was blood all over the place, blood spatters all over the walls, etc. The killer would likely have gotten at least some blood on him.

Since the autopsy report indicates that Michelle was strangled and beaten to death, the killer would have likely engaged in some sort of struggle with her.

It just seems very unlikely that Jason wouldn't have some sort of marks or blood spatters(which he would not be able to clean completely off) after such a brutal attack.

How would the blood splattered still be there? Wasn't he photographed a few days later? How long would it last after a few showers?


Also thank you all so much for keeping up with the case. I cant seem to bring myself to watch it this time around (my being 29 and pregnant may be playing into it) but I appreciate reading all of your thoughts!

 

[octobermoon]

going over CY's bathroom again.

 

[dgfred]

How would the blood splattered still be there? Wasn't he photographed a few days later? How long would it last after a few showers?


Also thank you all so much for keeping up with the case. I cant seem to bring myself to watch it this time around (my being 29 and pregnant may be playing into it) but I appreciate reading all of your thoughts!

Congratulations! :woohoo:

Keep up the reading, we will keep you up-to-date.

 

[cityslick]

Feel like this must be shouted from the mountaintop. (I'm not fussing at you, I'm just tuning in to WRAL's coverage now.) That Jason Young had no scratches or blood emphasizes the surprise element and Young's own preparedness. It is no surprise at all that he had no scratches, just as it is no surprise that there is no blood in the vehicle. He changed clothes (missing shirt, hello), he disposed of them, very likely wrapped in multiple garbage bags. He was extremely careful. Of course there was no blood - the state should have stipulated to all of these things and maybe they did yesterday(?). There was never going to be direct evidence like blood or clothes because Jason Young took the time and planned this crime pretty meticulously.

But he also left enough of a trail that shows his guilt.

ETA: I'm holding out hope that the state has a gotcha moment here to spring. I admit I have a strong bias in this case, yet I hear nothing from the defense that comes close to raising a doubt; Klinkosum is a great advocate for his client, but you just cannot argue or question away 2 + 2. (Admittedly, something went wrong in first trial.)

I understand he's a defense lawyer, but I can respect the way he's going about trying to defend his client. He's been pretty respectful of witnesses that I've seen.

 

[octobermoon]

Was the closet pictures suppose to imply they (the closets) were ransacked? Now he is jumping back to blood evidence.

 

[Just the Fax]

Just think common sense jury....please understand that a fully clothed assailant would be covered in blood, but protected from defense injury.

Please understand that stripping your bloody pants, shirt, shoes and gloves would leave the perpetrator's body clear of blood. All he would need to do would be wipe off his face with a towel and freshen with the hose outside.

 

[fromageball]

How would the blood splattered still be there? Wasn't he photographed a few days later? How long would it last after a few showers?

I'm not sure, I just know that investigators can use various tools(I think black lights or various chemicals) to see traces of blood that wouldn't go away after only a few days.

I think it would be more finding an "indication of the presence of blood" or whatever the lingo is than actually seeing anything with the naked eye. Probably because the skin is so porous that it's impossible to wash it all away.

 

[Just the Fax]

Klink is so much more articulate and effective vs the PT, iMO

 

[luckyme]

Uh oh were there prints on the jewlery box?

 

[ohiogirl]

I'm not sure, I just know that investigators can use various tools(I think black lights or various chemicals) to see traces of blood that wouldn't go away after only a few days.

I think it would be more finding an "indication of the presence of blood" or whatever the lingo is than actually seeing anything with the naked eye. Probably because the skin is so porous that it's impossible to wash it all away.

I really don't think this is realistic. jmo:seeya:

 

[octobermoon]

Just think common sense jury....please understand that a fully clothed assailant would be covered in blood, but protected from defense injury.

Please understand that stripping your bloody pants, shirt, shoes and gloves would leave the perpetrator's body clear of blood. All he would need to do would be wipe off his face with a towel and freshen with the hose outside.

I agree and whoever killed MY managed to get out of the house without leaving blood anywhere but upstairs. Except a tiny spot on the inside knob of the door to the garage. So there was something done to leave so little behind. And what stranger would be confident enough to take the time???

 

[Just the Fax]

Ok, here comes the tooth....no cig butts or hair this time.:floorlaugh:

 

[fromageball]

I really don't think this is realistic. jmo:seeya:

Could you elaborate?

 

[ohiogirl]

I don't believe that they would find traces of blood after someone has showered, possibly more than once, no matter what chemicals they use.

 

[cody100]

Good cross exam.

 

[cityslick]

Did he just get him to admit you can hold the door with the twig?