State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-23-2012

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
For the DT to bring in a witness now that would testify to having seen JY smoke cigars, I firmly believe it has to be someone from his group of friends at that time period and not a family member for anyone on the jury to give that testimony any weight at all.

IMO

Or a coworker - he said he started smoking cigars while working at his second job out of college so that could means mostly at work functions. Seems plausible since sales is a relatively social occupation.
 
Cigar thing did not help, but Josh didn't say JY definitely never smoked just that he could not recall him ever smoking. Defense needs to find a cigar smoking buddy fast or else.
 
I assumed that Jason did an occassional smoke cigars, but did think it was a bit odd for him to do that at midnight by himself outside a hotel on a cold windy night. If he doesn't smoke the occassional cigar - then it's even more bizarre, but Pat would have known that all along.

I'm not surprised at all that Pat would be blind to any of his testimony not being true or his story he chose to say on the stand during the 1st trial.

She probably lapped it all up since, supposedly, he'd kept his mouth shut this entire time.

She certainly wouldn't be the first mother to believe her child is just being ganged up on and refuses to see anything wrong they have done, no matter what the evidence is or how blatant they are lying.

IMO
 
I thought Jason also said that he started smoking cigars while working at Black & Decker(or whatever company he said was his 2nd job out of college)

He could have mainly smoked at work functions so that would explain why his friends never saw him smoking.

If true (bet he tried one), that was 2/2000....6 years before the murder.

Nice try Jay.
 
Or a coworker - he said he started smoking cigars while working at his second job out of college so that could means mostly at work functions. Seems plausible since sales is a relatively social occupation.

That would all depend on how long before this time frame this all happened.

He could have tried it when he was working at that other job and it just reinforced his opinion that he despised smoking and smokers.

For me, it would be much more weighty as evidence if it from his then group of friends from 2006. That would mean a lot more than any time frame before or after. The reason I say this time frame is because we heard today from a very good friend from that time period that he never saw him smoke cigars. Not someone from before or after, but the relevant time frame.

IMO
 
Cigar thing did not help, but Josh didn't say JY definitely never smoked just that he could not recall him ever smoking. Defense needs to find a cigar smoking buddy fast or else.

Josh was his best bud...in Raleigh, where they both lived.
Saw him often for years.

Anyone that claims Jay smoked cigars in 2006 will risk perjury.
 
He is a MONSTER! Killed his son and wife and left his little daughter in the HORROR all by herself, in the dark for hours. He is the worst of the worst to me.
 
Or a coworker - he said he started smoking cigars while working at his second job out of college so that could means mostly at work functions. Seems plausible since sales is a relatively social occupation.

But he was by himself, at a side exit door of a hotel in the middle of nowhere at midnight.
 
The WDS ruling was very damaging....imo

I don't know what the defense has planned, but they are in this until the end.

I find that very confusing - not sure how it will be interpretted. I suspect the jury might also find it confusing, since the ruling was based on Jason's silence and half the investigative information. Affidavits from an officer claiming that it was his belief that Jason was guilty shouldn't justify any conclusion that he is guilty. I don't put any weight on the fact that Jason claimed he didn't have funds for custody ... I think most people realize that there are a lot of reasons why people make the decisions that they make in complicated matters like custody during a criminal investigation.
 
Sure he was upset at the funeral home. He was afraid someone could see through his facade.:mad:

JMHO
fran

Yes, ma'am!!

And many here surely saw through his flimsy, fake, fact-free, fictitious, false, fudged, flim-flammy, ferret-faced, faux, facade of a testimony up there. Just <gag>.

And I saw in his expressions up there, a bit of BC's absolute, pure disdain for the PT and just the whole thing up there as well as everything going on in the courtroom. Such an inconvenience for him. Oh, that holier-than-thou superior look. What a sham of a man. And one day, I'll really tell ya how I feel about him.....
icon10.gif
 
But he was by himself, at a side exit door of a hotel in the middle of nowhere at midnight.

With a temp of 34 degrees, wearing no coat and with wind gusts of up to 30 mph! And let's not forget he ONLY had 2 matches. But thanks to the cub scouts he could light the cigar. Seriously, if we dried out his story I could fertilize my lawn.
 
Anyone think the DT will not put on a case and just take the advantage of speaking last in closing arguments???
 
But he was by himself, at a side exit door of a hotel in the middle of nowhere at midnight.

Yeah, my point was mainly with my previous comment that since he started smoking in a work-related setting that his friends might not have known that he smoked at all.
 
With a temp of 34 degrees, wearing no coat and with wind gusts of up to 30 mph! And let's not forget he ONLY had 2 matches. But thanks to the cub scouts he could light the cigar. Seriously, if we dried out his story I could fertilize my lawn.

He would have to IMO be an experienced smoker or an arsonist to light in 30mph winds. Before today I had no real reason to doubt the cigar story. I know I could light under these circumstances, but I smoke cigars out on the the golf course/boat in windy conditions (my friends will testify to this). And years ago when I smoked cigs I got to a point where I could light in near hurricane conditions.
 
Anyone think the DT will not put on a case and just take the advantage of speaking last in closing arguments???

I might if I'd have seen them take the better part of valor and say "no questions" at times when it would have made more sense than them getting up to question a witness.

I don't think most defense attorneys can pass up the chance to question a witness on the stand, even when it is obviously doing more damage than good. They can't see it for preening around, huffing and puffing in their righteous indignation that their client is on trial.

So, no, I think they will put on a defense and call witnesses. (Why? Because they can)

IMO
 
Can't forget what the pros asked and not allowed to answer.

Just why did he tell Jason to get an attorney before he talked to LE? He sure hesitated on that one.

just sayin'
fran

I think he had to take the time to swallow-down his real answer. It's obvious. He knew JY.
 
LMAO. Instead of a smoking gun, we get a non-smoking cigar! I love you guys.
 
I just heard a few mins ago on InSession that after the Pros last witness is done the jurors will get to "see all the evidence up close themselves" .... Did that happen last time? Or I wonder if it's even true...I don't hold much weight to anything I hear on TV.

Not InSession...Im sorry it was HLN Special Report started at 5pm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
2,318
Total visitors
2,388

Forum statistics

Threads
602,012
Messages
18,133,250
Members
231,206
Latest member
habitsofwaste
Back
Top