State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-24-2012

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Grit,

Is it true that the DT will go last (get last word) at closing if JLY does not take the stand?

I had thought it was based upon if the defense put witnesses on the stand regardless whether it included the defendant or not. During the first trial I thought the state went last, although JY testified?
 
Yes, compelling. But even Riha, the global director of HP, did not positively identify them as HP orbitals. He said they had similar characteristics and were not inconsistant.

IMO

So it's just another coincidence that JY owned a pair of Orbitals with the same characteristics and were not inconsistent with the prints in blood? What are the chances? How many coincidences can there be in one case?
 
Heather said that they did not even know an attorney to call.

How would Applebees help them then? Would you stop to have dinner because you don't have an attorney, all the while your bloodied, murdered wife is laying on your bedroom floor and you have no idea what happened to your child - other than being told she's alive I presume?

You have a 5 hour (?) drive to figure out how to get an atty. You have somebody at home start calling around and figure it out while you're driving.

Stop the insanity, please. This is insulting for most people to even comprehend.
 
How would Applebees help them then? Would you stop to have dinner because you don't have an attorney, all the while your bloodied, murdered wife is laying on your bedroom floor and you have no idea what happened to your child - other than being told she's alive I presume?

You have a 5 hour (?) drive to figure out how to get an atty. You have somebody at home start calling around and figure it out while you're driving.

Stop the insanity, please. This is insulting for most people to even comprehend.

I posted the link to Heather's testimony and why they stopped and timestamped it.

No need for the snark...
 
I posted the link to Heather's testimony and why they stopped and timestamped it.

No need for the snark...

I think the point is there were several people in the car so why would you need to stop for one person to make a phone call?
 
Here is Heather McCracken Young ( she is very pretty, btw)

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9758557/#/vid9758557

Timestamped : 9.00 Day 10, Part 3

They rec'd a phonecall as they approached Fuquay~Varina.
Ryan S. caled saying they were asking disturbing questions about Jason
and they decided they needed a lawyer.
They pulled into an Applebee's, and she thinks it was late around 11:00 pm
or a little after 11:00 pm.
Heather knew an attorney from an eye infection injury she had.
Pat called and left a message.
They left right away for MF's house.

............bumping............
 
I think the point is there were several people in the car so why would you need to stop for one person to make a phone call?

They did not know who to call, they stopped to regroup.

They were just told the police were asking disturbing q's about Jason.

Maybe Jason should have had a defense lawyer's phone number ready?
 
I'm an attorney. So I know how to analyze evidence and the presentation of a case. I do not know one other attorney or competent legal analyst or expert who watched that case who was not gobsmacked by the Pinellas decision. It was shocking. Even the judge was terribly shocked. I could tell because I also know how to read normally impassive judges since you have to, if you litigate, in order to know when to shut your mouth or when to continue on with an argument. Judge Perry's look when he got that verdict form said it all. I knew then that we were likely screwed. He rifled quickly through the form, trying in vain to find a "guilty" verdict somewhere significant. Every criminal defense attorney I know was shocked. And not because they are so used to losing, but because they felt the case was solid.

No, I just wouldn't characterize it as just a couple of people with a simple disagreement about something, like say religion, or politics. That was a verdict that has had experts in the field scratching their heads for months.

But my opinion as to the reasonableness of the casey anthony juror's decision indeed has nothing to do with whether Jason Young is guilty or not. Nor did I intimate that. Instead, I stated that just because jurors in his past trial rendered a certain decision, does not mean that the decision was a reasonable one. casey anthony's case and oj's case are examples of jurors dropping the ball. Not just to me, but to millions.

I have not analyzed all the evidence in this case and I have not watched the trials, so I cannot be definitive here. However, the little I have read/heard indicates to me that Jason Young had the motive, opportunity and means to commit this crime, his behavior afterwards points to consciousness of guilt, and very important, no one else has been found by either LE or Jason's defense investigators, who fits the bill as he does. In fact, not even close. So, my gut thus far is he is guilty.

But the prosecution needs to prove its case and rebut any defense before my gut becomes my belief and I need to spend a bit more time doing what you all have done researching this case, before my opinion as to his guilt and the juror's ultimate decision can be credible to any degree. :twocents:

Ditto Gitana.

You can also count me as a legal professional who was also gobsmacked.

The point is that what millions almost 99% of the US population thought was reasonable was not what apparently the Pinellas 12 thought was reasonable. Apparently to them they thought the outrageous defense theory was far more reasonable than that of the prosecution. Go freaking figure?

And to link this up to the Young case it's also important to note that as we have seen on this board and what we have seen from the Pinellas 12 is that there is a HUGE trend that requires (even though it's not legally required) a single piece of scientific evidence to point to guilt. Some jurors like the Pinellas 12 require that in order to vote for guilt. Which if was held as the standard would allow most, if not all, criminals free to commit whatever horrible violent crimes if they're smart enough (or lucky enough) to not leave behind physical evidence. Or commit the crime in their own home which could be easily explained away because they lived in the home.

Frankly it's a terrifying trend.
 
They did not know who to call, they stopped to regroup.

They were just told the police were asking disturbing q's about Jason.

Maybe Jason should have had a defense lawyer's phone number ready?

Of course "disturbing" questions about Jason was asked, his wife and unborn child were BRUTALLY murdered, her head bashed in. Who stops to regroup when your daughter was in the home while her mother was brutally murdered? Constant justification for his actions and inactions, but none of them are justifiable in my opinion.

Why would he need a defense lawyer's phone number handy when he knew everything would be handled for him once he got to his Mom's. He knew she would take care of her little imp, IMO.
 
With all due respect, <modsnip> I know at least one Florida prosecutor who was not surprised at all by the Anthony jury's decision. He didn't blame the jury, he blamed the prosecution team.

A jury doesn't lose a case, attorneys lose it.

JMO

With all due respect. Only one person lost in that case, her name is Caylee Marie Anthony.
 
They did not know who to call, they stopped to regroup.

They were just told the police were asking disturbing q's about Jason.

Maybe Jason should have had a defense lawyer's phone number ready?

BBM Well Cammy I do actually agree with you on something. I think they stopped to regroup too. They Knew LE was waiting and wanted to be sure their story was together.
 
So terrifying. What happened in the old days before all this technology?
People used common sense and put the pieces of the puzzle together. There are many pieces to this puzzle. One need only to put them together. Unfortunately those days are over.



Ditto Gitana.

You can also count me as a legal professional who was also gobsmacked.

The point is that what millions almost 99% of the US population thought was reasonable was not what apparently the Pinellas 12 thought was reasonable. Apparently to them they thought the outrageous defense theory was far more reasonable than that of the prosecution. Go freaking figure?

And to link this up to the Young case it's also important to note that as we have seen on this board and what we have seen from the Pinellas 12 is that there is a HUGE trend that requires (even though it's not legally required) a single piece of scientific evidence to point to guilt. Some jurors like the Pinellas 12 require that in order to vote for guilt. Which if was held as the standard would allow most, if not all, criminals free to commit whatever horrible violent crimes if they're smart enough (or lucky enough) to not leave behind physical evidence. Or commit the crime in their own home which could be easily explained away because they lived in the home.

Frankly it's a terrifying trend.
 
I'm not Grit either but my understanding is only if the DT does not present a case do they get to go last. I've never seen that done, but I guess if the PT has an extremely weak case that could pay off.

thanks,,,I knew there was a scenario the defense could have the last word.
 
BBM Well Cammy I do actually agree with you on something. I think they stopped to regroup too. They Knew LE was waiting and wanted to be sure their story was together.

I have no idea why in the world they stopped.
I posted Heather's reasons, not mine.
 
So terrifying. What happened in the old days before all this technology?
People used common sense and put the pieces of the puzzle together. There are many pieces to this puzzle. One need only to put them together. Unfortunately those days are over.

Maybe it's more of missing puzzle pieces or that the puzzle does not fit........
 
Yes, compelling. But even Riha, the global director of HP, did not positively identify them as HP orbitals. He said they had similar characteristics and were not inconsistant.

IMO
Of course he could not positively say they were orbitals.
Thankfully most jurors have common sense and hopefully good eyes..
if a few have a hard time understanding, i'm sure there will be a good leader that will lead them down the right path...straight to guilty as charged.
 
Maybe it's more of missing puzzle pieces or that the puzzle does not fit........

But that's just it. As a juror you're not even SUPPOSED to consider any missing pieces. You simply consider the evidence presented, not what wasn't presented.

Basically you take each puzzle piece and decide is it credible or not. But if you have say 10 very incriminating things that could be explained as a terrible coincidence it becomes harder and harder to say that each and every one could be a horrible coincidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
1,883
Total visitors
2,017

Forum statistics

Threads
601,763
Messages
18,129,448
Members
231,138
Latest member
mjF7nx
Back
Top