State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-24-2012

[the couger]

My two year old can not reach the lights. My two year old also does not have the hand/grip strength to turn a hose on. We tighten ours up pretty tight and it's hard for me to do sometimes.

Maybe she just turned it off and that is why it was leaking VERY slow.
MOO: CY turned it off after her and daddy completed working together outside and rinsed off.

 

[gracielee]

They cannot deliberate at all until the defense has rested, closing arguments are done, and they are handed their little piece of verdict paper after the jury instructions are read. So, no, they cannot deliberate today.

Of course I know that. I've followed trials for over 40 years. The question asked was 'how did the Brad Cooper jury view evidence during their deliberations?'

 

[Turnadot]

Note the verbiage "surrounded by what appeared to be blood splatter." They are referring to the print. A print that was surrounded by blood splatter.

Irrelevant, since it's not evidence. Opinion based on our own interpretation of common sense isn't facts in evidence, either. Speculation regarding the print, is not fact either. Expert testimony in open Court regarding the print leaves the conclusion of how it got there ambiguous, IMO.

I'll just drop this now, because it doesn't seem to matter.

IMO

 

[Talina]

Maybe she just turned it off and that is why it was leaking VERY slow.
MOO: CY turned it off after her and daddy completed working together outside and rinsed off.

In your theory, when would this have happened? Wasn't CY at day care during the afternoon while JY was supposedly doing this yard work?

 

[otto]

Of course I know that. I've followed trials for over 40 years. The question asked was 'how did the Brad Cooper jury view evidence during their deliberations?'

They were allowed to view the evidence in the courtroom, but not to discuss it while they were viewing it. If they wanted to see evidence during deliberations, they made a request and a decision was made whether it could be viewed. The jury then viewed it in the courtroom, without discussing it in the courtroom, and returned to their deliberations.

It's the very same as in this case.

 

[Boodles]

OT: Michelle Money was pregnant after Michelle's murder, but testified that she only had one child, born before the murder. Does anyone know what happened to that pregnancy?

 

[PoppyMcTwist]

Note the verbiage "surrounded by what appeared to be blood splatter." They are referring to the print. A print that was surrounded by blood splatter. No, a print cannot be dated. But common sense would indicate that if it's a print that is surrounded by blood spatter and no blood is on the print itself, the reason is because something was blocking that specific area. And the thing blocking it would be the finger or hand that made the print in the first place. Common sense to me.

"Surrounded" is ambiguous. If the spatter created an actual void, this case would be over.

IMO

 

[gritguy]

Couldn't 75 evidence bags be collections from various areas around the 3300 square foot home on the one acre property? Isn't it possible that 75 different items were collected and analyzed ... even though not all 75 items contained evidence?

It could be. He also says roughly 75 bags of evidence, so it could be more or less. I don't think he collected anything like 75 items that would be "evidence" in the sense of being relevant in the trial. 75 things most of which would have nothing to do with anything? Sure, IMO. Showing his bias, he says this 75 bags include evidence that was "either missed or ignored" by LE. How does he know that? How does he know they didn't see it but choose not to collect it - is that not possible? He makes his living trying to discredit LE investigations, so keep that in mind.

Here's what he says, "Dr. Maurice Godwin was a consultant for Jason's family from November 2006 until 2009. Dr. Godwin spent 3 weeks processing the Young crime scene and collected roughly 75 bags of evidence that was either missed or ignored by Wake County Sheriff's Detectives and City/County Bureau of Identification (CCBI)."

I take it he spends his time trying to discredit LE at trial, rather than for example investigating for the purpose of discovering the criminal. That that is who was chosen to canvass the crime scene by the Youngs tells me a lot, IMO.
We'll see, though, he may be convincing if he takes the stand.

Let him speak for himself:

"Services range from helping defense attorneys detect analytical fallacies made by crime scene investigators to trial litigation consultant. Dr. Godwin also can assist attorneys in developing trial strategies, which will diminish the testimony of the opposition’s profiling or crime scene expert.

....

Dr. Godwin is experienced at examining thousand of pages of discovery looking for salient facts and information which might appear meaningless but in fact may have a positive impact on a defense case."

There's a term for this sort of expert, but it would not be polite to state it here.

http://www.investigativepsych.com/about/default.html

 

[Lori59]

So, any opinions on how long the jury looks at this evidence and what it means to how they are thinking?

 

[borndem]

Can anyone hear the jury questions? Sounds like they are ready to deliberate.

I agree, o'moon. Yes, from what little I could hear, it sounded like they were ready to discuss things.

 

[Turnadot]

BBM

Can a print be dated? I thought there was not way to actually date a print.

IMO

There isn't, as far as I'm aware.

I wasn't trying to really challenge anyone's opinion regarding the print, I just want to make sure I have the facts in evidence correct, and I want to be absolutely clear on what are facts in evidence, and personal opinion, because I'm all easily confused and stuff, lol.

IMO

 

[gritguy]

If one believes the hand prevented the blood from landing in the area surrounding the print and that is why it has blood around it but not on it, the print is effectively dated. If not, the print means nothing. IMO.

 

[Cammy]

:seeya:

Morning or good afternoon!!

I missed the state's last witness, did they officially rest their case?

I need to read and catch up.

 

[Madeleine74]

"Surrounded" is ambiguous. If the spatter created an actual void, this case would be over.

IMO

Nope. It's one piece of circumstantial evidence. The case wouldn't be 'over' by a long shot based on this one piece. It's something that was found, and a jury can weigh it along with other circumstantial evidence in the case.

 

[Turnadot]

If one believes the hand prevented the blood from landing in the area surrounding the print and that is why it has blood around it but not on it, the print is effectively dated. If not, the print means nothing. IMO.

There wasn't a void though, hence the lack of dating the print??

No void; no date.

The hand print is ambiguous evidence.

IMO

 

[cityslick]

I don't see why 16inches above the floor bracing yourself is an odd contortion... especially if the victim being beaten is on the floor.

Was he on his knees when he was bracing himself because that's the only explanation as to why a regular sized male would be bracing themselves a foot and a half off the floor.

 

[gracielee]

They were allowed to view the evidence in the courtroom, but not to discuss it while they were viewing it. If they wanted to see evidence during deliberations, they made a request and a decision was made whether it could be viewed. The jury then viewed it in the courtroom, without discussing it in the courtroom, and returned to their deliberations.

It's the very same as in this case.

Which was exactly what I replied originally.

 

[dgfred]

Was he on his knees when he was bracing himself because that's the only explanation as to why a regular sized male would be bracing themselves a foot and a half off the floor.

Bend over near wall, brace hand on wall, punch floor... there ya go. I am 6ft tall and I can do it.

 

[Turnadot]

Nope. It's one piece of circumstantial evidence. The case wouldn't be 'over' by a long shot based on this one piece. It's something that was found, and a jury can weigh it along with other circumstantial evidence in the case.

That's true, but I gotta say that if the print had created a void, the jury would have their CSI moment, IMO.

 

[otto]

It could be. He also says roughly 75 bags of evidence, so it could be more or less. I don't think he collected anything like 75 items that would be "evidence" in the sense of being relevant in the trial. 75 things most of which would have nothing to do with anything? Sure, IMO. Showing his bias, he says this 75 bags include evidence that was "either missed or ignored" by LE. How does he know that? How does he know they didn't see it but choose not to collect it - is that not possible? He makes his living trying to discredit LE investigations, so keep that in mind.

Here's what he says, "Dr. Maurice Godwin was a consultant for Jason's family from November 2006 until 2009. Dr. Godwin spent 3 weeks processing the Young crime scene and collected roughly 75 bags of evidence that was either missed or ignored by Wake County Sheriff's Detectives and City/County Bureau of Identification (CCBI)."

I take it he spends his time trying to discredit LE at trial, rather than for example investigating for the purpose of discovering the criminal. That that is who was chosen to canvass the crime scene by the Youngs tells me a lot, IMO.
We'll see, though, he may be convincing if he takes the stand.

Let him speak for himself:

"Services range from helping defense attorneys detect analytical fallacies made by crime scene investigators to trial litigation consultant. Dr. Godwin also can assist attorneys in developing trial strategies, which will diminish the testimony of the opposition’s profiling or crime scene expert.

....

Dr. Godwin is experienced at examining thousand of pages of discovery looking for salient facts and information which might appear meaningless but in fact may have a positive impact on a defense case."

There's a term for this sort of expert, but it would not be polite to state it here.

http://www.investigativepsych.com/about/default.html

BBM

I don't think so either (regarding phrase I bolded). Investigators may have collected 300 evidence bags, but I wouldn't assume that all 300 evidence bags contained evidence that is useful during trial. I don't think that it's all that unusual for 75 items of evidence to be collected for analysis. If only 3 items of evidence were collected, I would wonder why only 3 were collected, but 75 seems quite normal.