State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-21-2012

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
There was a receipt placed under his door and a newspaper, a weekend edition of the USA placed on his doorknob as well..

And, still the clerk testified to not seeing the door ajar.

My post that you quoted said exactly what you are posting with the explanation on why it wasn't noted as being ajar. :waitasec:
 
I had forgotten how much of a trainwreck his testimony was. How the heck was there a hung jury?!

People are gullible. Really gullible. Very little common sense. Plus BH's cross exam of JY was just awful. She questioned him for about 30 min and that was it. Also, some people simply won't convict unless there's a video of the murder or a hand print by the perp in the victim's blood left at the crime scene. Sad, but true.

Also, the state had NO IDEA what JY would say since he literally never spoke to anyone about his whereabouts or the murder of his wife.
 
It's nice to give an alibi after you know what all evidence they have against you!! IMO, he never spoke to police because he had know ideal what they had found against him.
 
I am confused. Why are they watching the 1st trial testimony? Does this preclude JY from testifying again?

His testimony was a complete surprise to everyone, including the pros. That's because the def almost never testifies in his own behalf. Any lawyer will tell their client NO.

The pros wasn't ready for his testimony and since he'd never given his account to ANYONE before, they didn't have any question ready, except to go over his statements he'd just given to the jury.

Fact is, they missed a great deal to show he lied, but they weren't prepared beforehand, thus a hung jury was the result.

Now they're trying to show inconsistancies compared to testimony that's been given this trial.

I think he can still testify in his own behalf. This is still the pros case.

hth
fran
 
He spoke to michelle money a lot, per his own testimony. Yet he 'loved his wife & was working on his marriage.'
 
Jason telling about his meeting and then took off to Brevard, stopping in Duffield for gas.
 
"With regard to, um..." the HI door: so he said he figured out that the door wouldn't latch unless you pulled it hard, right? How long did it take to determine this, and was he sure it wouldn't lock later on? For instance, if doors in my house are pulled shut but not completely closed, when the central A/C kicks on it pulls the doors closed. If I was staying in a hotel it seems odd to leave the door unlatched and risk being locked out, needing to go to the front desk to get a new key, etc. Isn't it more convenient to simply take the KEY? It makes no sense to me. :waitasec:

Say he did just leave it unlocked by not closing it all the way. When he got back to the room for the receipts and would be locked out, he could just simply say he stepped out for a second and got locked out. That wasn't necessary as the door never latched. Lucky duck, yet again.
 
No record that he tried to call in late. He mentions only one bar showing connection status on phone. That did not stop him from trying to call Mama Young 28 times
 
He ate his 'continental breakfast' at HI. Hmmm, never picked up on video in the lobby.

As JTF has posted, it would be impossible to not be seen on video if he had, in fact, gone to that breakfast area. Another lie, for those keeping score.
 
His testimony was a complete surprise to everyone, including the pros. That's because the def almost never testifies in his own behalf. Any lawyer will tell their client NO.

The pros wasn't ready for his testimony and since he'd never given his account to ANYONE before, they didn't have any question ready, except to go over his statements he'd just given to the jury.

Fact is, they missed a great deal to show he lied, but they weren't prepared beforehand, thus a hung jury was the result.

Now they're trying to show inconsistancies compared to testimony that's been given this trial.

I think he can still testify in his own behalf. This is still the pros case.

hth


fran

Too bad they can't put him on the stand and cross examine this video of his first testimony. That would be perfect. jmo
 
Whether the Pros was prepared or not the first time Jason testified they should have been........and there is no excuse for not at least asking the important questions ......
 
Better to have Spivey point out every lie JY told on the stand, IMHO. That alone might take hours.
 
He spoke to michelle money a lot, per his own testimony. Yet he 'loved his wife & was working on his marriage.'

By "loved his wife" he meant hit on any and all women within hailing range while verbally bashing his spouse, and by "working on his marriage" he meant murdering his wife.
 
Whether the Pros was prepared or not the first time Jason testified they should have been........and there is no excuse for notat least asking the important questions ......

I have been wondering if these attorneys are the same and if it is the same judge as in the first trial. Can you help me out with that? tia
 
Just a thought, why would you put your laptop in a bag but not the charger.
 
Whether the Pros was prepared or not the first time Jason testified they should have been........and there is no excuse for not at least asking the important questions ......

I agree. I can find very few good and positive things to say about the prosecution's first run with this.
 
Jason explaining the trouble with his cell phone, and dropped calls.

He was in the mountains......actually called the phone company.
 
Just caught him in another lie!

He says he didn't realize he left the ebay papers until after his meeting at the hospital. However, I think his first call to MF was before that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
1,624
Total visitors
1,759

Forum statistics

Threads
602,030
Messages
18,133,565
Members
231,213
Latest member
kellieshoes
Back
Top