State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-24-2012

[otto]

MF said he had on "dress shoes" when she saw him come in.

Thansk. Are the brown shoes in the back of the vehicle similar to shoes seen in video of him the night before? For someone that is described as being disorganized, he would be awfully organized to have extra shoes to replace the ones that the prosecution alleges he was wearing on the night of the murder.

 

[mck16]

But, but It's too hard to take notes and think things through. Why should I have to put 2 and 2 together? It's the DA's fault, they didn't hand it to me on a silver platter.

Driving home today I was listening to Vinnie P and as part of his show he played bits of testimony that the Prosecutor had presented. I have not followed this case until recently so I don't know as much about it as the other posters here, but I will say that the testimony I heard this afternoon was chilling. I actually got goose bumps listening to the sister's testimony about when she found Michele. All the other testimony about affairs, his behaviour when out socially and all the rest of the testimony certainly convinced me.

And also one thing I wonder is if Jason did not do this what is the theory of who did? I have not heard or seen that posted here. Was there anything missing as in a robbery. Was she raped. Who do you think did it if he didn't. And what is a possible motive. Question is for anyone that has a theory. jmo and thanks.

 

[otto]

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?

The prosecution has presented shoes not inconsistent with shoes that Jason owned 1.5 years earlier. I have to agree with Jason here ... after a year, shoes need to be replaced.

 

[mck16]

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.

So are you saying that as a juror you are not supposed to think logically? You are not supposed to look for the missing pieces? I am asking this because I have jury duty on Monday and while I am hoping not to be picked for a case if I am I want to be prepared. thanks

 

[Just the Fax]

Thansk. Are the brown shoes in the back of the vehicle similar to shoes seen in video of him the night before? For someone that is described as being disorganized, he would be awfully organized to have extra shoes to replace the ones that the prosecution alleges he was wearing on the night of the murder.

The tan Kenneth Coles ?
Similar to the dark brown Hush Puppies?
(the ones that Jay said he gave away)

 

[3doglady]

The prosecution has presented shoes not inconsistent with shoes that Jason owned 1.5 years earlier. I have to agree with Jason here ... after a year, shoes need to be replaced.

The shoes are in the CB video. That video was taken the night of the murder. He could not produce those shoes. He purchased a similar pair immediately after the murder and told a lie as the reason he bought the other pair.


ETA Otto, I thought you had jumped the isle?

 

[Just the Fax]

The prosecution has presented shoes not inconsistent with shoes that Jason owned 1.5 years earlier. I have to agree with Jason here ... after a year, shoes need to be replaced.

So he held on to these an extra few years?

:floorlaugh:

 

[otto]

The tan Kenneth Coles ?
Similar to the dark brown Hush Puppies?

The style looks similar to me ... but if the prosecution is presenting a black shoe and asking the jury to imagine it's brown, that's a bit weird. I glazed over the Shoe Chronicles since the prosecution is trying to match a print to a shoe that wasn't in evidence and which was most likely thrown out due to wear.

 

[otto]

The shoes are in the CB video. That video was taken the night of the murder. He could not produce those shoes. He purchased a similar pair immediately after the murder and told a lie as the reason he bought the other pair.


ETA Otto, I thought you had jumped the isle?

My gut feeling is that this guy is guilty of murdering his wife and I've certainly seen compelling evidence. Whether the prosecution has presented a convincing case is still debatable ... in my opinion.

 

[borndem]

Would you like a glass of chardonnay? :seeya: Or vodka & cranberry juice? I haven't decided which yet myself.

Still at it, are ya, Gracie??!! :floorlaugh:

 

[NCEast]

Driving home today I was listening to Vinnie P and as part of his show he played bits of testimony that the Prosecutor had presented. I have not followed this case until recently so I don't know as much about it as the other posters here, but I will say that the testimony I heard this afternoon was chilling. I actually got goose bumps listening to the sister's testimony about when she found Michele. All the other testimony about affairs, his behaviour when out socially and all the rest of the testimony certainly convinced me.

And also one thing I wonder is if Jason did not do this what is the theory of who did? I have not heard or seen that posted here. Was there anything missing as in a robbery. Was she raped. Who do you think did it if he didn't. And what is a possible motive. Question is for anyone that has a theory. jmo and thanks.

It is very chilling to listen to MF's testimony about finding her sister. I just can't imagine how awful that was for her.
MY was not raped. All clothing was found intact. The only items missing were her wedding rings which were removed from her finger and two drawers from a jewelry box. And $500.00 cash in JY's closet.
I don't have a theory about alternate perps because from the moment this case broke on the news I have felt he is guilty. There is no evidence whatsoever pointing to anybody else who have the opportunity, means and motive to murder MY. The biggest problem I have with both the first trial and this trial is the prosecutors. They, in my opinion, are simply awful.

 

[gracielee]

Gritguy or any other legal eagle:

Any chance the Judge may include a lesser charge this time around?

No, it was a first degree murder, planned, premeditated, done in the dead of night, no pun intended.

 

[JSR]

So are you saying that as a juror you are not supposed to think logically? You are not supposed to look for the missing pieces? I am asking this because I have jury duty on Monday and while I am hoping not to be picked for a case if I am I want to be prepared. thanks

You should think logically. That's a must. In fact you should COMPLETELY use your common sense. You're supposed to evaluate what is presented to you. And only what is presented to you. And most importantly evaluate the evidence as the judge instructs when you are given your jury instructions. And typically a judge will give a generic instruction indicating that circumstantial evidence is to be given the same weight as physical evidence (more or less).

Here's an example of how you're not supposed to evaluate evidence. I'm being very general here and it's sort of on topic to the previous posts.

You've heard two witnesses testify that defendant was wearing x, y, and z. They both corroborate each other's account and description.

Back in the jury room a juror says we didn't see a picture or a video of the defendant wearing x, y, and z. So I'm throwing out that evidence or fact.

Jurors should evaluate the two witness testimonies and deem the testimony either credible or not and then move forward. But what you can't do is evaluate the evidence based off something that wasn't presented in Court. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[BrownRice]

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

No need for the snark...

I'm sorry, the snark wasn't towards you - it is towards the Youngs who want us to believe this baloney.

 

[PoppyMcTwist]

Wow, Poppy, you are good.
I remember Karen Morrow's testimony too.
When asked by the defense if she was telling the court the shoes were a match, she said No.

Thanks Cammy :blushing:

The shoe situation reminds me of a shell game, and without a solid identification it's much too easy to claim a pair is missing.

IMO

 

[mck16]

You should think logically. That's a must. In fact you should COMPLETELY use your common sense. You're supposed to evaluate what is presented to you. And only what is presented to you. And most importantly evaluate the evidence as the judge instructs when you are given your jury instructions. And typically a judge will give a generic instruction indicating that circumstantial evidence is to be given the same weight as physical evidence (more or less).

Here's an example of how you're not supposed to evaluate evidence. I'm being very general here and it's sort of on topic to the previous posts.

You've heard two witnesses testify that defendant was wearing x, y, and z. They both corroborate each other's account and description.

Back in the jury room a juror says we didn't see a picture or a video of the defendant wearing x, y, and z. So I'm throwing out that evidence or fact.

Jurors should evaluate the two witness testimonies and deem the testimony either credible or not and then move forward. But what you can't do is evaluate the evidence based off something that wasn't presented in Court. It just doesn't work that way.

Thanks and that makes sense. I do want to clarify that the reason I don't want to be selected for the jury is that I don't want to drive downtown Dallas every day. Course if I am I will be happy with it and try to do my best. Especially after the way the Anthony case was handled. jmo

 

[Just the Fax]

The shoe situation reminds me of a shell game, and without a solid identification it's much too easy to claim a pair is missing.

IMO

So, is the pullover-shirt under one of those shells too?

 

[JSR]

Thanks and that makes sense. I do want to clarify that the reason I don't want to be selected for the jury is that I don't want to drive downtown Dallas every day. Course if I am I will be happy with it and try to do my best. Especially after the way the Anthony case was handled. jmo

BBM. Good I'm glad.

The justice system does work, most of the time unless if your name is Casey Anthony or OJ. Truly it does. But it only works as well as the jurors who promise to do their duty.

It's important to note that if just one common sense thinking juror sat on the Anthony case we would have had a different outcome. Or on the flip side if a truly innocent defendant is standing trial it takes only one juror to keep an injustice from being carried out.

Juries ARE the backbone to making the legal system work.

 

[fifteen89]

SS and MY had made plans the week(s) prior to watch GA that nite.

I was surprised when the daycare worker/babysitter said MY invited her too, because SS made it sound like this was supposed to be just her and Michelle's nite together, because they had not seen each other for awhile and were going to catch up and watch their show ..

One of the other reasons was that Jason was to be out of town.

We also can't forget how scared SS was that nite, that she felt someone was watching them, so much so, that she asked MY to walk her outside to her car.

Shaad "felt someone was watching them" - don't remember hearing specifically that she felt someone was watching them.....what day was her testimony?

ETA: found it - it was day 3. Will have to watch later.

In the day 3, part 3 video of her testimony (http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10704274/#/vid10704274) at around the 17:30 mark the questions about when/how she left start.


Q: And did Michelle walk you out to your car?

A: Yes, because I felt so uneasy that night I said 'Michelle, do you mind just walking me out?' and she did. She walked me, we left through the front door, and she walked me to my car and I said goodbye and I left.




Did she talk about feeling they were being watched at some other point?

 

[PoppyMcTwist]

So, is the pullover-shirt under one of those shells too?

Nope, not at all.

At this point, I have no doubt the pullover is missing.

IMO