State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-23-2012

[Skittles]

LOL, Gracie, I was just about to post that southern trial attorneys should make an effort to pronounce "your" as "yor" rather than "yur" to avoid that!

I wish that Northern speakers would stop using subjective pronouns in the place of objective pronouns because they think it makes them sound more intelligent.

Ex: John gave the gift to she and I a day early as a surprise. WRONG.

Ex: John gave the gift to her and me a day early as a surprise. CORRECT.

Everyone's always jumping on Southern slang, but just to be clear, there is Northern slang as well.

Tarheel: I wasn't trying to jump on anybody, or any group of people, really! I wouldn't call the pronunciation of "your" as "yer" slang, I'd call it a particular accent. When BH said that word next to "analysis" without good enunciation the result may have distracted some of the jury and they may have missed what she said next. BH could avoid this with either better enunciation or by altering the pronunciation. I often alter my native accent if I think it will help me be better understood by the group I'm speaking to or be less distracting. People often can't tell what part of the country I'm from.

I'm with you on the usage of objective pronouns, although I'd call using "I" where "me" is proper just plain poor grammar, not slang. I've heard that particular grammatical error committed by people from all corners of the country, not just the north. I think of slang more as non-standard vocabulary rather than grammar, e.g "groovy" in the 60's or "phat" more recently.

Perhaps we can get together on proper usage of gerunds.

 

[3doglady]

Completely different. IIRC, there was decomp found in the car.

Several people testified that it smelled like decomp, the dogs hit on it, but forensics did not show decomp. No DNA in the trunk. There was one hair of Caylee's.

JY's shoe prints were at the scene in blood.

 

[Tia]

Jason also had bottle(s) of water, so, I really don't know.

Maybe he was overtired, just wanted to unwind before going to sleep.

Maybe once he got outside, it was more windy than he had expected.

I was looking at the video from when he walked into the hotel, and his
hair is not messed up at all from the wind.

But, I do think the defense will be more than ready when it's their turn.

Those Size 10 shoeprints are not going to go away.:wink:

They are going to cause a few Jurors doubts.

All that tells me, and possibly the jury, is that Jason may have had help...I doubt it, but it seems the evidence presented so far puts him at the scene. Whether Jason ever fesses up to an accomplice remains to be seen. He was there. IF there was anyone else there, I doubt we will ever know.

 

[pjcitizen]

Wow, the cigar lie would 1,000,000,000 percent convince me of his guilt. Not a big deal????????? It's his alibi basically. *Twilight Zone theme song*

 

[3doglady]

All that tells me, and possibly the jury, is that Jason may have had help...I doubt it, but it seems the evidence presented so far puts him at the scene. Whether Jason ever fesses up to an accomplice remains to be seen. He was there. IF there was anyone else there, I doubt we will ever know.

I agree. The fact that there were size 10 prints there does not erase the fact that there were size 12 HP prints there. Isn't it strange that the size 12 prints were partials but the 10 was a full print clearly made from heel to toe?

 

[jamiect]

Several people testified that it smelled like decomp, the dogs hit on it, but forensics did not show decomp. No DNA in the trunk. There was one hair of Caylee's.

JY's shoe prints were at the scene in blood.

Yes, I agree but I was responding to the cigar/twig testimony...nothing else. JMO

 

[Tia]

I agree. The fact that there were size 10 prints there does not erase the fact that there were size 12 HP prints there. Isn't it strange that the size 12 prints were partials but the 10 was a full print clearly made from heel to toe?

He was staging the scene, IMO. And the other thought that continually creeps into my mind.....was it Ma Pat? All the phone calls to her the next day...? I'm sure I'm way off base, but that has always bothered me.

ETA: she is the ONLY person I could see that Jason would not throw under the bus. She is financing his freedom after all.....

 

[borndem]

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.

The officer affidavits were only prima facie evidence, that's true, but that's about all you'd need if there is no one there, namely JY, to argue it. An atty. going in there for JY wouldn't do it; JY had to be there to be deposed that he could fight it. And that he didn't show up is the nail in the WDS coffin. Just like a ball game -- if you don't show, you forfeit and the other team wins. Simple.

 

[Talina]

I agree. The fact that there were size 10 prints there does not erase the fact that there were size 12 HP prints there. Isn't it strange that the size 12 prints were partials but the 10 was a full print clearly made from heel to toe?

That line of thought has always had me puzzled. I don't see how the size 10 shoe prints being at the scene make some people then completely discount that there were size 12 shoes. It's like the size 10 shoes mean JY wasn't there since that is not his size. Well, Hello???? The size 12 shoes are still there and the print just so happens to match a pair of shoes JY himself admits to having owned.

IMO

 

[Talina]

Maybe Beth Karas is filling him in. If that's the case, the prosecution is in big trouble because of all TH's Beth has always been the most unbiased and fair commentator I've ever seen on television.

I don't think Beth has even been there the last few days.

Also, the first few days when she was covering this, even she had some of her facts wrong but she got caught up fairly quickly and I did see her correcting some of her cohorts a bit and saw others posting the same thing. She seems to be off doing something else this week though.

I do agree on what you said about Beth though. She's long been one of my favorites.

IMO

 

[janesdean]

Interesting turn of events, otto.
Glad you decided to finally put the white hat on.:cowboy:

I'll be watching you, so no backpedaling LOL

I'm very surprised at this change of heart as well, but I agree ! So, JTF, what are your thoughts on the verdict ? Do you think B.Holt has done it this time around ? IMO, she has certainly brought in a lot more evidence than the first time around, I am somewhat stunned at some of the things she had and didn't use the 1st time. But, finally it's looking pretty grim for JY, and rightfully so !

 

[Shadow722]

It makes absolutely no difference. What makes it important, though (at least to me), is why did he have to lie about what he was doing if what he was doing was not incriminating? If he was not a cigar smoker (and so far there is no evidence that he was and after today- evidence that he likely wasn't) and fabricated being one as a reason for being outside - then why was he really outside? The truth of why he was outside couldn't be told so he had to make up a reason. Unfortunately for him, his reason for being outside at a time that he shouldn't have been is crumbling apart. So why is that?



IMO

Talina,

MY was not murdered in the parking lot of the Hotel. It is irrelevant to the theory of the crime what JY was actually doing in the parking lot. He was there, he went outside, he came back inside. Unless the PT can connect that act of going outside for an alleged puff; to his actually meeting an accomplice or perhaps going to the Hillsville General Store to buy a pair of size 10 shoes, then it's just a dot that does not connect to anything else.

I understand that it may be important to you, but how does it connect JY in any way to his wife's brutal murder??

Let's assume he lied about smoking, to cover what nefarious deed??? And how is that nefarious deed, related to the murder of MY???

If the answer is nothing, because we have no earthly idea what he did or why, then whether he smoked or not is simply not an issue to JY's ultimate guilt or innocence.

There's certainly an abundance of CE pointing to JY's guilt, but having a cigar or not in a Hillsville hotel parking lot is not among them.

 

[borndem]

That line of thought has always had me puzzled. I don't see how the size 10 shoe prints being at the scene make some people then completely discount that there were size 12 shoes. It's like the size 10 shoes mean JY wasn't there since that is not his size. Well, Hello???? The size 12 shoes are still there and the print just so happens to match a pair of shoes JY himself admits to having owned.

IMO

And he might well have been wearing those same ol' size 12's in the C.Barrell and the HI. Hmmmmm. Right, Talina!!??

He could very well have worn the 10's when he first arrived at his house, hoping to put some prints in the ground outside the house. Who knows?

Yes, there is absolutely nothing about the 10's that should diminish or somehow disqualify the size 12 HP Orbitals. Those are a fact. Period.

 

[janesdean]

BC is pissed about something with this witness.

Ya, maybe his own ineptness !

 

[gritguy]

I won't post such a long thing in this thread, but if you care to read here is my argument for Michelle, who deserves not to be forgotten and who deserves justice, long delayed though it is.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7631587#post7631587

 

[Talina]

Talina,

MY was not murdered in the parking lot of the Hotel. It is irrelevant to the theory of the crime what JY was actually doing in the parking lot. He was there, he went outside, he came back inside. Unless the PT can connect that act of going outside for an alleged puff; to his actually meeting an accomplice or perhaps going to the Hillsville General Store to buy a pair of size 10 shoes, then it's just a dot that does not connect to anything else.

I understand that it may be important to you, but how does it connect JY in any way to his wife's brutal murder??

Let's assume he lied about smoking, to cover what nefarious deed??? And how is that nefarious deed, related to the murder of MY???

If the answer is nothing, because we have no earthly idea what he did or why, then whether he smoked or not is simply not an issue to JY's ultimate guilt or innocence.

There's certainly an abundance of CE pointing to JY's guilt, but having a cigar or not in a Hillsville hotel parking lot is not among them.

Well, for me, the deed it covers up is him going outside to get in his vehicle to leave and drive home. That is what it tells me he could have lied about.

If what he went outside for was something innocent such as getting something from his car, then just say so. If he wanted to take a walk, then just say so. Instead he lies about something that he doesn't even need to lie about if what he went outside to do would not incriminate him.

That's is what it says to me and by leaving, then the other dots are connected.

IMO

 

[3doglady]

Talina,

MY was not murdered in the parking lot of the Hotel. It is irrelevant to the theory of the crime what JY was actually doing in the parking lot. He was there, he went outside, he came back inside. Unless the PT can connect that act of going outside for an alleged puff; to his actually meeting an accomplice or perhaps going to the Hillsville General Store to buy a pair of size 10 shoes, then it's just a dot that does not connect to anything else.

I understand that it may be important to you, but how does it connect JY in any way to his wife's brutal murder??

Let's assume he lied about smoking, to cover what nefarious deed??? And how is that nefarious deed, related to the murder of MY???

If the answer is nothing, because we have no earthly idea what he did or why, then whether he smoked or not is simply not an issue to JY's ultimate guilt or innocence.

There's certainly an abundance of CE pointing to JY's guilt, but having a cigar or not in a Hillsville hotel parking lot is not among them.

It's not like he lied to a friend about it. He lied about it on the stand during his trial for murder of his wife. Unless he was doing something worse than murdering his wife there was no reason to lie under oath. I think the cigar lie is a pretty big deal.

 

[traveler]

Talina,

MY was not murdered in the parking lot of the Hotel. It is irrelevant to the theory of the crime what JY was actually doing in the parking lot. He was there, he went outside, he came back inside. Unless the PT can connect that act of going outside for an alleged puff; to his actually meeting an accomplice or perhaps going to the Hillsville General Store to buy a pair of size 10 shoes, then it's just a dot that does not connect to anything else.

I understand that it may be important to you, but how does it connect JY in any way to his wife's brutal murder??

Let's assume he lied about smoking, to cover what nefarious deed??? And how is that nefarious deed, related to the murder of MY???

If the answer is nothing, because we have no earthly idea what he did or why, then whether he smoked or not is simply not an issue to JY's ultimate guilt or innocence.

There's certainly an abundance of CE pointing to JY's guilt, but having a cigar or not in a Hillsville hotel parking lot is not among them.

He is seen on video leaving the hotel at midnight - no other video exists of him returning. He only used his key card once at check-in - 11pm. If he left his room as seen on video...where did he go? Jason's alibi doesn't hold up! Why did he feel the need to not lock his room door to go out for a "smoke"? Why did he turn off his cell phone? Who unplugged the camera? Who pushed the camera up to the ceiling? Bottom line is Jason has significant holes in his alibi.

 

[Madeleine74]

Talina,

MY was not murdered in the parking lot of the Hotel. It is irrelevant to the theory of the crime what JY was actually doing in the parking lot. He was there, he went outside, he came back inside. {snipped}

Let's assume he lied about smoking, to cover what nefarious deed???

There's certainly an abundance of CE pointing to JY's guilt, but having a cigar or not in a Hillsville hotel parking lot is not among them.

You contend he came back inside. What time was that? Where is the proof of the time he came back in? There's no key card read, no video of it, a rock was in the door and still there up until 5:50am when it was found and taken out. So exactly what TIME did he come back in to the hotel? Think it doesn't matter? Oh but it does. Prove that he came back inside before 6:30am to pick up his hotel invoice.

What nefarious deed?

How about getting into his SUV, driving back to RAL, murdering his wife, and then driving back to the HI, arriving by 6:30am, just in time to come in and push the camera up to the ceiling. Would you consider that nefarious? If not, why not?

You might say "no proof." To which I answer, 2 witnesses: 1 in King, NC and another who saw him and/or his SUV (or an SUV like his) at his house. HP shoe prints in his size, in a style he had, in the victims blood.

 

[borndem]

I was looking back at the article that cited the BC trial jury foreman speaking about how things went with the jurors reaching a verdict, and this is an except that, to me, speaks volumes:

"It is my personal belief that we (the jurors) came into this process verdict-neutral. Brad Cooper was innocent until proven guilty," jury foreman Andy Gilbert said in an email this week to WRAL News and other media outlets. "I came into this situation neutral, and I left it that way. The evidence was the only factor in determining our verdict. "

Specifically, Gilbert said, was testimony from two FBI agents who testified about Internet searches on Brad Cooper's laptop computer, including maps of the location where his wife's body was found.

"The evidence presented by Special Agents (Gregory) Johnson and (Chris) Chappell drove the outcome on this case," he said. "It caused a lot of the other circumstantial evidence to become relevant and credible."

What more could the Court ask? The sentence, "It caused a lot of the other circumstantial evidence to become relevant and credible." says it all for me.

Oh, I hope this is so with this jury.

from

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9677512/