State vs. Jason Lynn Young 2-24-2012

[gritguy]

I can't either!

((are they baggies))???:what:

They could be of course, but it's a tall tale to say there are 75 items of evidence that LE missed or ignored based on anything the defense has ever put in evidence. Now, he might have counted each fiber of something individually.

Anyway, if he can back it up, good on him. The defense has their chance coming.

He went to that scene as a defense advocate though, not an investigator with an open mind. His website is plain on what he charges for. Think he has ever gone back to a client and said you know what I think YOU did it. Check please. I don't blame the defense for using him. He could even find something useful. But when he speaks, he speaks to discredit LE, and one should have some salt handy when swallowing what he says, IMO.

 

[nursebeeme]

Why would a ban be put on blood spatter evidence? Ban on any other evidence in NC?

blood spatter pattern analysis was suspended and put under review by the governor
http://www.forensicsguy.com/benchnotes/blood-spatter-work-suspended-at-nc-sbi-2/

very sad situation... I think blood spatter testimony would have been very valuable in this case :twocents:

 

[dgfred]

Haha... 'salty hand'. Go gritguy.

 

[Tipstaff]

And ... that's exactly what his lawyer advised him to do ... not answer any questions related to he murder. Since the custody lawyer intended to ask questions about the murder, Jason was backed into a corner.

Not what I believe the testimony showed this morning Otto. All he need do was to respond in writing to a scheduled/in writing time table for regular visits. The fact that he wouldn't agree in writing to a schedule prompted the action being taken further.

Somebody correct me if I interpreted wrongly.

 

[fran]

IMHO, when or IF the last pros witness testimony or worth of it is mentioned in the closing by the pros, it was to show another lie JY gave in his sworn testimony in the first trial. Evidence of him being a liar and cannot be trusted to what he states that may show he did NOT commit the crime of murder against Michelle.

It is to show he lied when he said it was because of the money involved that he relinquished custody of his daughter, because all he had to do was simply sign an agreement for a one year period of visitation. MF and LF wanted in writing that they could see CY, approximately every other month, supervised visits either in MF's home or PY's home.

It's also to show that they were NOT originally persuing JY as the 'slayer,' but merely for visitation they felt they were legally due, because of their relationship with CY previously.

It was to show how far JY and his family would go to deny the F's any contact with CY.

It was to show how the Y's even went so far as returning gifts from the F's unopened.

It's part of the puzzle that spells murder.

IMHO, some are getting too hung up on every piece of dust on the story. It's the facts that MAY get JY convicted. Each item in itself doesn't say the whole story, but is placed within the puzzle, that when all the pieces are placed, spell JY is the one who quietly entered the Y's home on the nite or Nov. 2nd, or early morning hours of Nov. 3rd, 2006, and beat and strangled Michelle Young until her last breath.

That's the big picture and I think the PROS as shown the entire puzzle, piece by piece by piece, over the past few weeks, and their closing statement or argument, will put it in a package that the jury can see as a whole. A picture of premeditated murder.

JMHO
of course,
fran

 

[otto]

Thank you.......

I don't see Jason being in that 4 day plan though, do you?

But, sounds like they have some new and additional witnesses too!!

I don't think Jason needs to testify again as his testimony has been presented via video. The only thing he could add is that custody is a complicated matter and that he misspoke when he said that the "only" reason he did not enter into a protracted custody battle was money. He could add that money was a significant point, but that there were other factors such as a psychological evaluation - which is not an accurate science (we know that multiple psych evals on Josh Powell did not reveal that he was capable of murdering his children), that he would have to go against his lawyer's advice and discuss the criminal investigation and so on. I think he risks more by testifying again.

 

[Cammy]

Not sure it helps or hurts. However, any theory that includes JY going outside to hose any significant amount of blood off CY could not be correct, unless you also believe that LE completely botched the investigative part of blood detection near that sidewalk.

I can not imagine Jason taking CY outside in freezing cold weather to wash blood off her feet from an outside hose..

Besides, she was found with slight blood residue near her toenails, and one of the shoes had blood spots in it from her feet.

The hose would have cleaned her feet perfectly, not leaving any traces of blood on her feet.

I am convinced she cleaned herself up the best she could.

Her pj's even show she sat on the floor.........

jmo

 

[gritguy]

Isn't common sense used, though, to interpret those facts and evidence introduced into a trial?

At some point time, common sense and logic comes into play when the evidence is being analyzed and deliberated.

At least I would hope so.

IMO

Of course you are correct. The judge will likely even remind the jury to use their common sense. Attorneys have been known to hope jurors won't. :innocent:

Here's from the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions:

“You should consider all the evidence, arguments, contentions and positions urged by the attorney(s) and any other contention that arises from the evidence; and using your common sense you must determine the truth in this case.”

 

[gritguy]

I can not imagine Jason taking CY outside in freezing cold weather to wash blood off her feet.

Besides, she was found with slight blood residue near her toenails, and one of the shoes had blood spots in it from her feet.

The hose would have cleaned her feet perfectly, not leaving any traces of blood on her feet.

I am convinced she cleaned herself up the best she could.

Her pj's even show she sat on the floor.........

jmo

I doubt that too. Except on the part about how she did get cleaned up.

 

[otto]

Right, missed has a clear meaning. He claimed to have 75 bags of evidence missed. If you can read his website blurb on this case and not think that he is stating LE "missed or ignored" 75 items of evidence that he found, then that is a much better way to determine his meaning than anything I can say.

I guess it depends on what one wants to take away from it ... my interpretation is that 75 evidence bags were collected, items that were not collected by investigators. We know for a fact that some of the evidence collected after investigators released the scene were relevant and were "missed". Isn't the guy a psychologist? My experience is that lawyers are very precise with the meaning of words for obvious legal reasons, but the rest of the people use words without intending them to be used in a legal context. Missed, or left behind ... doesn't make much difference when it comes to words on a website.

 

[DrDigger]

In short, no, prints that recent can't be dated.

Well, in theory they can-- but the standard deviation would be so large that it would be deemed inconclusive and would be of no substantive value. Furthermore there would likely not be enough material to date even if they could.

 

[gritguy]

And ... that's exactly what his lawyer advised him to do ... not answer any questions related to he murder. Since the custody lawyer intended to ask questions about the murder, Jason was backed into a corner.

Good point. And when Jason thinks he's backed into a corner, he's never failed to put himself above anyone else.

This is what is strange to so many parents I guess, that he would protect himself above keeping his daughter. It is a real window into the kind of person he is, just in my opinion.

 

[Cammy]

I don't think Jason needs to testify again as his testimony has been presented via video. The only thing he could add is that custody is a complicated matter and that he misspoke when he said that the "only" reason he did not enter into a protracted custody battle was money. He could add that money was a significant point, but that there were other factors such as a psychological evaluation - which is not an accurate science (we know that multiple psych evals on Josh Powell did not reveal that he was capable of murdering his children), that he would have to go against his lawyer's advice and discuss the criminal investigation and so on. I think he risks more by testifying again.

House money says he does not take the stand again, imo

I know he is a gambler, but this is not one of those times..

 

[gritguy]

Haha... 'salty hand'. Go gritguy.

Oops! :rocker:

 

[MyBelle]

BBM

With respect...

OK. Fair enough. I only care about testimony in Court; not my personal interpretation of common sense.

IMO

The SBI analyst involved in the Young case was Duane Deaver, who was fired because he fabricated blood spatter evidence in other cases.

In this case, there's never been a photo to back up the claim on the search warrant so I think it is safe to assume it is simple more pure fiction invented to help his LE buddies by Deaver.

JMO

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/21/1003842/doubt-spatters-old-cases.html

"In Wake County, prosecutors will have to figure out what to do about Deaver's bloodstain pattern analysis in the 2006 death of Michelle Young, a pregnant woman whose husband, Jason Young, is expected to be tried for her killing in May.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/21/1003842/doubt-spatters-old-cases.html#storylink=cpy"

 

[otto]

Not what I believe the testimony showed this morning Otto. All he need do was to respond in writing to a scheduled/in writing time table for regular visits. The fact that he wouldn't agree in writing to a schedule prompted the action being taken further.

Somebody correct me if I interpreted wrongly.

I really doubt that it was going to be all that simple. With custody, it may start with an interim agreement for scheduled visitation, but it usually doesn't take long for an application to be made to modify that agreement ... the psych eval is usually the first tactic. The party that wants custody will take notes at every visit, documenting everything that can be interpretted as detrimental to the child. For example, a scrape on the knee can be interpretted as negligent parenting. If it was all that simple, custody wouldn't be such an expensive, protracted, antagonistic process.

 

[gritguy]

House money says he does not take the stand again, imo

I know he is a gambler, but this is not one of those times..

That's the big question, IMO. If I heard correctly, the defense plans more testimony this time around.

He won that first round, and I wouldn't have thought that would happen.

You guys may be right, and we'll know soon.

If he does not take the stand, there will surely be discussion on the PT's decision to play the tape.

BC didn't take the stand, and I think that case was weaker than this one (just MO, and every jury is different), so his team made the right call last time.

Would the main reason this time be the fear the PT is better prepared for c-x? If not that, wouldn't they think he could help himself again, as he did the first time? Or do they think the PT did them a favor playing the tape?

:waitasec:

 

[Just the Fax]

The SBI analyst involved in the Young case was Duane Deaver, who was fired because he fabricated blood spatter evidence in other cases.

"

Did he testify?
Nope.
Moot point

 

[Cammy]

They could be of course, but it's a tall tale to say there are 75 items of evidence that LE missed or ignored based on anything the defense has ever put in evidence. Now, he might have counted each fiber of something individually.

Anyway, if he can back it up, good on him. The defense has their chance coming.

He went to that scene as a defense advocate though, not an investigator with an open mind. His website is plain on what he charges for. Think he has ever gone back to a client and said you know what I think YOU did it. Check please. I don't blame the defense for using him. He could even find something useful. But when he speaks, he speaks to discredit LE, and one should have some salt handy when swallowing what he says, IMO.

Do we know for a fact Dr. Maurice Godwin is going to testify, GG?

I wish I could see the defense witness list.

It should be:
Pat (mom)
Gerald( stepdad)
Heather( sister)
maybe, maybe Kimberly? (sister)

Demetrius Barrett (friend)

Cindy Beaver ( very, very, very credible eye witness who saw a car at 5:30 am)
She lived on the street for 21 years and had to go by the Young home
every am on her way to work (28 years employment at the post office)
Did not involve herself in the case in any way
Coworkers were discussing it, and she then told her boss,
and he called LE for her.

Maybe they have some experts of their own.

Maybe even Gracie's boss,Tiki Ingrams, a Pros witness,
she contradicted Gracie's shift
last time from being 12-8, instead of 11-7.....
not that it's a big thing.

Don't know who else.

 

[aliciabal]

IMHO, when or IF the last pros witness testimony or worth of it is mentioned in the closing by the pros, it was to show another lie JY gave in his sworn testimony in the first trial. Evidence of him being a liar and cannot be trusted to what he states that may show he did NOT commit the crime of murder against Michelle.

It is to show he lied when he said it was because of the money involved that he relinquished custody of his daughter, because all he had to do was simply sign an agreement for a one year period of visitation. MF and LF wanted in writing that they could see CY, approximately every other month, supervised visits either in MF's home or PY's home.

It's also to show that they were NOT originally persuing JY as the 'slayer,' but merely for visitation they felt they were legally due, because of their relationship with CY previously.

It was to show how far JY and his family would go to deny the F's any contact with CY.

It was to show how the Y's even went so far as returning gifts from the F's unopened.

It's part of the puzzle that spells murder.

IMHO, some are getting too hung up on every piece of dust on the story. It's the facts that MAY get JY convicted. Each item in itself doesn't say the whole story, but is placed within the puzzle, that when all the pieces are placed, spell JY is the one who quietly entered the Y's home on the nite or Nov. 2nd, or early morning hours of Nov. 3rd, 2006, and beat and strangled Michelle Young until her last breath.

That's the big picture and I think the PROS as shown the entire puzzle, piece by piece by piece, over the past few weeks, and their closing statement or argument, will put it in a package that the jury can see as a whole. A picture of premeditated murder.

JMHO
of course,
fran

I agree. My doubts come in when analyzing each piece of CE separately. Altogether, the evidence tells the story that JY did this. I just hope we have a jury that looks at the preponderance of the evidence and doesn't try to prove or discount piece by piece. IMO, the PT closing statements will either sew it up or not. The PT is really going to have to connect the dots so the jury doesn't get led around by red herrings. I wonder if JY will testify again. I'll bet he does and the prosecution will be ready this go round.