State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-15-2012

[otto]

Random thought....Jason could have brought a tarp upstairs to the MBR to prevent tracking of stuff, be it debris, blood, fibers, etc.

He also could have worn a jumpsuit, a hazmat type outfit. I wonder if they checked Army supply type places to see if he purchased any of that type of clothing.

And if investigators did not get to the dog and forensically search him, for fibers and things he may have ingested, that was a possible mistake, too.

I have asked a few times, but no response and I do not see any video in the WRAL archives, but did Ryan Schaad testify in the first trial?

Someone suggested a Tyvek suit, maybe a cheap painter's suit.

 

[fifteen89]

Trace evidence of carpet fibers? Bedding fibers? Hotels are cheap places (sorry, not a direct aim at this chain) and they are used by lots of people. It would have been on the hoodie, the shoes, his jeans, etc.

Why do we have none of that?

And, I'm not trying to rile anything up with this. But, the folks involved with this looked for a LOT of stuff. They looked for this. They found none.

So, does anyone think that more or less points towards the other ideas: a) not JY, b) a hit or paid killing of some kind or c) an accomplice doing the bulk of it?

It wasn't wiped up because no one would know what to wipe when it came to fibers, etc. It was certainly looked for in multiple places. It was tested for.

Maybe because he didn't spend what little time he was in the room before leaving rolling around on the carpet.....and/or he changed clothes and shoes before leaving the room. The missing shirt/shoes seem to fit that scenario.

 

[otto]

I think that goes back to taking each action separately. By itself the drugging means nothing. It's like taking one color out of a picture and looking at it. It's meaningless. But if you put all the colors together you get a picture. The drugging is one color. Add all the actions or coincidences together and you get a multicolored picture.

If we add "drugging" or perhaps a "weapon" to the evidence, yes, it strengthens the case against Jason. My question is why "drugging" has been added to the evidence. There is nothing to support the theory that Jason used the drugs or that the child was drugged. Instead, the child appears to have been active and alert throughout the evening, portions of the night and the morning.

This color doesn't belong because no connection to reality has been presented. By adding "drugging", the prosecution tries to establish a connection that isn't really there ... create a connection between Jason and the crime scene ...

 

[PoppyMcTwist]

It wasn't described as a smear. I'm pretty sure he said a small spot.

The Prosecutor used the word spot to indicate location, not size.

Russell Holley testified that there were two areas on the inside of Cassidy's shoe that tested positive for blood. One was the area just beneath the ball of her feet, the other was the area just beneath her heel.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10736235/#/vid10736235

IMO, this means Cassidy had blood on her foot when she put on, or tried to put on, that little shoe.

 

[NCEast]

If we add "drugging" or perhaps a "weapon" to the evidence, yes, it strengthens the case against Jason. My question is why "drugging" has been added to the evidence. There is nothing to support the theory that Jason used the drugs or that the child was drugged. Instead, the child appears to have been active and alert throughout the evening, portions of the night and the morning.

This color doesn't belong because no connection to reality has been presented. By adding "drugging", the prosecution tries to establish a connection that isn't really there ... create a connection between Jason and the crime scene ...

I think Jason's job was the connection to the drug and the alleged drugging of the child. Had he worked for LBJ Chevrolet in Raleigh nobody would have been so quick to make the connection. It, too, may be a red herring.

 

[otto]

For some reason, I was never able to quite visualize where the child's bedroom door was in relation to the bathroom door ... now we see.

 

[Just the Fax]

If we add "drugging" or perhaps a "weapon" to the evidence, yes, it strengthens the case against Jason. My question is why "drugging" has been added to the evidence. There is nothing to support the theory that Jason used the drugs or that the child was drugged. Instead, the child appears to have been active and alert throughout the evening, portions of the night and the morning.

This color doesn't belong because no connection to reality has been presented. By adding "drugging", the prosecution tries to establish a connection that isn't really there ... create a connection between Jason and the crime scene ...

You do realize she was found alert at 1:30 PM, right?
The theory is he drugged her before he left around 3:45 AM.
So what's that, 10 hours? It is logical she was fully awake and alert for +/- 2 hours alone
Adult extra strength meds with recent evidence of usage in a 2 year old child's room is compelling evidence.

 

[otto]

The Prosecutor used the word spot to indicate location, not size.

Russell Holley testified that there were two areas on the inside of Cassidy's shoe that tested positive for blood. One was the area just beneath the ball of her feet, the other was the area just beneath her heel.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10736235/#/vid10736235

IMO, this means Cassidy had blood on her foot when she put on, or tried to put on, that little shoe.

Thank you. That sounds very much like she put on her shoe, perhaps one black one and one flipflop, after stepping in the blood.

 

[PoppyMcTwist]

If we add "drugging" or perhaps a "weapon" to the evidence, yes, it strengthens the case against Jason. My question is why "drugging" has been added to the evidence. There is nothing to support the theory that Jason used the drugs or that the child was drugged. Instead, the child appears to have been active and alert throughout the evening, portions of the night and the morning.

This color doesn't belong because no connection to reality has been presented. By adding "drugging", the prosecution tries to establish a connection that isn't really there ... create a connection between Jason and the crime scene ...

I agree. There is no evidence to support drugging. The prosecution should not have mentioned it.

 

[KellyCrash]

Why is it so hard to believe that JY could have drugged CY? I think he mostly certainly did. He could have done it as soon as he got home before he killed MY. To make sure she did not wake up during the attack. It takes about 30 mins for liquid meds to kick in. He could have picked up a sleepy 2 yr old & given her the dropper while she was asleep or barely awake. Rocked her for 30 mins. Put on the CD. & Then killed her mother. Or he could have done it after the attack. A child that is put to bed at 8pm even with administration of meds in the middle of the night is not going to sleep all day! That is why he was so frantic to get in touch with MF. He was worried about CY being home alone.

Did anyone find the diaper CY wore to bed that night? Because I would assume she woke up and took it off herself because it was wet. I don't find it surprising at all that she wasn't groggy! She could have been awake for a couple of hours and still have slept a lot later than usual.

 

[otto]

I think Jason's job was the connection to the drug and the alleged drugging of the child. Had he worked for LBJ Chevrolet in Raleigh nobody would have been so quick to make the connection. It, too, may be a red herring.

We know that he had drug samples, but it has been suggested here often that Jason was a non-father, that he did not participate in the child's upbringing and had no clue that she no longer fell asleep listening to music, yet at the same time, we having him regularly tucking her into bed, sometimes with his drug samples.

Connecting the drugs between Jason and his job was a given. Jason administering those drugs to his daughter or his daughter being drugged at either 7 pm or 4 am are not supported by the evidence.

 

[NCEast]

Well, it's almost time for CSI (not Miami--ugh Horatio). Going to wind down now....will see you guys at 9:30 in the morning.

 

[KellyCrash]

I agree. There is no evidence to support drugging. The prosecution should not have mentioned it.

I don't put adult strength meds with a dropper in my child's bedroom! I don't think it's a leap at all to assume that's what happened. Adult meds in my house are found in the kitchen cabinet, my nightstand, or my bathroom. NOT MY KIDS room.

 

[fifteen89]

If anyone doubts that someone would drive hours to commit a brutal murder and then pretend nothing happened, read Christopher Porco

Just watched a show on that case. What I found fascinating was the cop who was a friend of the family that immediately asked the horribly injured mother if Christopher had done it.

 

[Just the Fax]

Yes Kelly, add the lullaby CD playing on her shelf and it is obvious daddy took measure to be sure she slept as sound and as long as possible. Calling MF right after his meeting at noon was about right. He calculated she would probably be down until that time range.
He got desperate and very nervous by 1-1:30 when there was no confirmation from MF she found Cassidy. Having mommy also call MF 15 minutes later speaks VOLUMES.

This picture is sooo clear, I have a hard time believing anyone can possibly find reasonable doubt.

 

[otto]

You do realize she was found alert at 1:30 PM, right?
The theory is he drugged her before he left around 3:45 AM.
So what's that, 10 hours? It is logical she was fully awake and alert for +/- 2 hours alone
Adult extra strength meds with recent evidence of usage in a 2 year old child's room is compelling evidence.

How long is a 2 year old knocked out by adult pharmaceuticals according to "recent evidence" and who is volunteering their two year old for testing?

It is evident that the child was moving around the house in the morning, putting on shoes, smearing the wall, dropping her doll over the edge of the bed or putting it there, getting bandaids, talking about wash clothes ... or did all of this happen after the suspect left? Did the child have time to put on shoes, remove shoes, put them in bed with her, get her doll, bring the doll to her mom, get bandaids, put prints on the bathroom wall and floor, move around the house, be knock-out drugged, tucked into bed, then the robbery staging, then the shoe print staging ... all in the span of one hour five minutes?

If it all happened in the night, either Jason did not have enough time, it all happened after he left - meaning no drugs.

Was the child drugged at 4 AM and awake again at 8, a two years old still happy at 1:30 in the afternoon?

The timeline seems messed up if we try to put Jason in the house, add drugging and all the activity that seems to have occurred with the child.

 

[otto]

Why is it so hard to believe that JY could have drugged CY? I think he mostly certainly did. He could have done it as soon as he got home before he killed MY. To make sure she did not wake up during the attack. It takes about 30 mins for liquid meds to kick in. He could have picked up a sleepy 2 yr old & given her the dropper while she was asleep or barely awake. Rocked her for 30 mins. Put on the CD. & Then killed her mother. Or he could have done it after the attack. A child that is put to bed at 8pm even with administration of meds in the middle of the night is not going to sleep all day! That is why he was so frantic to get in touch with MF. He was worried about CY being home alone.

Did anyone find the diaper CY wore to bed that night? Because I would assume she woke up and took it off herself because it was wet. I don't find it surprising at all that she wasn't groggy! She could have been awake for a couple of hours and still have slept a lot later than usual.

Jason could have drugged her, he could have given her a peanut butter sandwich. There is nothing that supports either theory.

 

[otto]

I don't put adult strength meds with a dropper in my child's bedroom! I don't think it's a leap at all to assume that's what happened. Adult meds in my house are found in the kitchen cabinet, my nightstand, or my bathroom. NOT MY KIDS room.

There's no evidence that Jason put the pharmaceuticals in his daughter's room, although we do know that he brought home samples from work.

 

[Just the Fax]

Yes otto, jay had close to an hour.
That is ample time to do the things you posted tonight - and many other times.
The time-line does not work in the favor of the defense, at all.

One thing about the time-line that adds credibility to Gracie, is the camera was tampered with again, right on cue with the time it would take to return from King NC

 

[otto]

Just watched a show on that case. What I found fascinating was the cop who was a friend of the family that immediately asked the horribly injured mother if Christopher had done it.

It's amazing that the mother was conscious and able to answer the question. It's no suprise that after her recovery she had no memory of the event. There was a history of trouble with that son.