State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-27-12

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
fran said:
This is just IMHO, but I think the relevance of question about the title and quit claim of the real estate was to show that JY was familiar with the law and he did it for them without having to PAY an attorney.

This goes to part of the case in that they lawyered up JUST because of what JY's friends said. I think they're getting at he lawyered up because he didn't want to talk to LE. Or that is what they pros is getting at

JMHO
of course,
fran
Click to expand...

I agree!
 
Yes Yes!! Joe M said PY was nervous!!! and then he backtracked a bit and tried to change the wording. God I pray that the jury picks up on things like this. Plus he out right lied that he did not know MY first he said he did not know her but then he stated that they all got together all the time I think were his words. He is lying because lord only knows PY and JY sister HM would probably ruin his life if he told the truth. I hope it is ruined any way for lying completely under oath. Not telling what went on inside the car at the AppleBee parking lot. Who the F.... can eat when they are supposedly distraught. The jury can just not buy this BS. IMO of course!!!
 
Shadow722 said:
On the night just after the murder, without future consideration of JY's ultimate guilt or innocence, being met by the LE, having your vehicle impounded under a search warrant, your luggage, and your parents luggage, as soon as you arrive, then lawyering up seems very prudent.

Remember, at this point in time, the LE has not yet busted JY alibi, they have not id'ed the shoe prints as JY's, in fact they have no earthy idea whom is responsible. But their first suspect is the husband with the deceased wife.

If he did not get a lawyer @ Applebee's, he sure as hell would have got one about 5 minutes after he got to his SIL's house.

Get a lawyer given the circumstances, guilty or not guilty, seems very prudent given the actions of the LE in totality on that night.

Subsequent details, JY actions and evidenciary revelations appear to have proved the LE right, that JY was indeed guilty, but getting a lawyer by JY at this point in time was smart, even if he was somehow innocent.
Click to expand...


IMHO, JY CLAIMED he had a lawyer when he arrived at MF's. He told them his lawyer said he wasn't to talk about it. That he wasn't to talk to LE until he saw his lawyer and not talk without his lawyer present.

In other words he lied that he already had a lawyer, when in fact, all he'd done is his sis, 'left a message,' for a non criminal lawyer.

IMHO, it was him saying that he HAD a lawyer and refusing to even confront LE and listen to what they had to say, without saying a word, is probably the BIGGEST motivation LE had to look at him as the main POI, or suspect.

JMHO
fran
 
"so I don't know how likely it is to convince 67% of a jury to change their vote... "

This trial is not about convincing a jury to change their vote. This is a new trial with a new jury. Presumably no one on this jury has made up their mind about anything as of yet. Jury instructions are for the jury to hear the entire case and THEN deliberate, prior to coming to a decision.

RE: TruTV coverage of this trial.

Why do I have the feeling that somewhere along the line a Producer said "Hey, let's cover this as if we think he's going to get off again. That way, we can't loose. If he does get off again, we can say "See, we knew what we were talking about" and if he is convicted this time we can have all the drama of the "surprise" of a Guilty Verdict"

Just tuned in today and I am not really understanding why the Defense is taking the time to have a State Trooper testify that the accident was in fact an accident. Did I miss something along the way? It did not seem to me that the Prosecutors had made any big deal about that accident. I don't remember it being put forth by the Prosecution that it was deliberate. But again, maybe I missed that part?

Maybe the Defense just likes having a State Trooper testifying for the Defense. About anything.

Does the Prosecution get to present Rebuttal witnesses after the Defense rests? Any chance the Prosecution has more to present?
 
Stella5 said:
He was the driver of JY's Ford Explorer when someone called one of the other 3 occupants to tip them off that LE was asking "disturbing questions" regarding JY & his potential involvement in MY's murder. He can remember a phone call was placed to one of them telling JY to get a lawyer, but cannot remember who called them and whether or not they attempted to get a lawyer while sitting in that Applebee's parking lot? I find that hard to believe. Whoever took that call would have said that was Joe Blow, and he says you need to lawyer up because LE thinks you did this. You don't forget details like this when you have just found out your sister-in-law was beaten to death and to top it off you now hear LE thinks your brother-in-law, who is in your backseat had something to do with it. MOO.
Click to expand...

If McCracken didn't know the person who called and told JY to lawyer up, why would he remember the name/details? Also JY could have gotten out of the car at applebees to make whatever calls he made.

I don't think McCracken was focused on those particular details...he appears to have been focused on supporting Heather/JY/Pat/everyone else since he was the least involved in the whole thing. He didn't even have to be there.
 
fromageball said:
That's an assumption that could be true, but my assumption is that he was more focused on helping everyone out since he was driving. I think he was trying to play a supportive role since, as he testified, he didn't even know Michelle very well, but Heather, Jason, Pat, etc. did. He probably figured it wasn't his business anyway.

Also this all happened 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

But then again JM stated that he (and I think the words JM used were all the time) and HYM got together with MY and JY all the time for holidays and to eat JY and MY went up there and they(JM and HYM) went down there. This brother in law dude is completely lying from what I gather. IMO of course.
 
fromageball said:
That's an assumption that could be true, but my assumption is that he was more focused on helping everyone out since he was driving. I think he was trying to play a supportive role since, as he testified, he didn't even know Michelle very well, but Heather, Jason, Pat, etc. did. He probably figured it wasn't his business anyway.

Also this all happened 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

Back in 2005 my dad died as we were on our way back to the house from the funeral home .... My cell rang & I can not tell you to this day who actually called me & said you need to get here quick.... All I can remember was that it was a female... My dad died as I was pulling into the driveway... When I went into the house I can not tell you who was around or in the room.... All I remember is calling my husband at work and saying he's gone...

Sometimes we forget things that others would think were important & sometimes we are in shock that we forget.... After all we are all human....
 
calamityjane831 said:
Yes Yes!! Joe M said PY was nervous!!! and then he backtracked a bit and tried to change the wording. God I pray that the jury picks up on things like this. Plus he out right lied that he did not know MY first he said he did not know her but then he stated that they all got together all the time I think were his words. He is lying because lord only knows PY and JY sister HM would probably ruin his life if he told the truth. I hope it is ruined any way for lying completely under oath. Not telling what went on inside the car at the AppleBee parking lot. Who the F.... can eat when they are supposedly distraught. The jury can just not buy this BS. IMO of course!!!
Click to expand...

Of course, Pat was nervous.
Anyone would be, she was trying to make sense of what happened, trying
to help Jason , trying to pack and get them all back to Raleigh, which they did, ASAP.

And, in Jason's car !!

They also did not have anything to eat, and I don't know why you are calling this witness a liar.

:(
 
calamityjane831 said:
Yes Yes!! Joe M said PY was nervous!!! and then he backtracked a bit and tried to change the wording. God I pray that the jury picks up on things like this.
Click to expand...

Unless you are trying to say that Pat was involved, I don't see what the significance of that is. They didn't even have all of the information at that point.

Not to mention if my son's wife were found murdered, I would recognize that my son would at least be considered as a suspect. Good reason to be nervous imo.
 
SteelerGirl43 said:
Back in 2005 my dad died as we were on our way back to the house from the funeral home .... My cell rang & I can not tell you to this day who actually called me & said you need to get here quick.... All I can remember was that it was a female... My dad died as I was pulling into the driveway... When I went into the house I can not tell you who was around or in the room.... All I remember is calling my husband at work and saying he's gone...

Sometimes we forget things that others would think were important & sometimes we are in shock that we forget.... After all we are all human....
Click to expand...

Sorry for your loss, Steeler gal....:(

One other thing we have to remember here, this is a 5+ year old case, it didn't happen just a few months ago.

And, I don't know anyone who looks foward to getting up on the witness stand....
 
What's the statute of limitations on practicing law without a license? If it hasn't passed, when the PT loses this one, they can charge Jason with that for the quitclaim deed.
§84-2.1. “Practice of law” defined.
The phrase “practice law” as used in this Chapter is defined to be performing any legal service for any other person, firm or corporation, with or without compensation, specifically including the preparation or aiding in the preparation of deeds, mortgages, wills, trust instruments, inventories, accounts.....
 
calamityjane831 said:
Yes Yes!! Joe M said PY was nervous!!! and then he backtracked a bit and tried to change the wording. God I pray that the jury picks up on things like this. Plus he out right lied that he did not know MY first he said he did not know her but then he stated that they all got together all the time I think were his words. He is lying because lord only knows PY and JY sister HM would probably ruin his life if he told the truth. I hope it is ruined any way for lying completely under oath. Not telling what went on inside the car at the AppleBee parking lot. Who the F.... can eat when they are supposedly distraught. The jury can just not buy this BS. IMO of course!!!
Click to expand...

WOW!!!! To call a witness a liar while under oath is a very strong accusation. Not even a IMO, stated as a fact. They did NOT eat while at AppleBee's.
 
AlwaysShocked said:
"so I don't know how likely it is to convince 67% of a jury to change their vote... "

This trial is not about convincing a jury to change their vote. This is a new trial with a new jury. Presumably no one on this jury has made up their mind about anything as of yet. Jury instructions are for the jury to hear the entire case and THEN deliberate, prior to coming to a decision.
Click to expand...


Understood - my point was that if a former jury was presented substantially the same case and 67% of that jury voted for acquittal, then it seems an uphill climb to expect any different verdict this time around. Especially since the PT is proving horrible at cross and the DT was quite good at them.
 
Cammy said:
The casket was open, at least for the family.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Cammy. Why do I find that so shocking? Wasn't that extremely difficult for them given her condition?

Btw Cammy, I just wanted to say that although it appears you and I definitely have opposing views on what the verdict should be, I have admired and respected the diplomatic delivery of your posts.
 
Did I hear JM say that he quit claim deeded the house to HY b/c they were separated? In my experience, married people who are divorcing usually fight over the assets.
 
JiminWilton said:
What's the statute of limitations on practicing law without a license? If it hasn't passed, when the PT loses this one, they can charge Jason with that for the quitclaim deed.
§84-2.1. “Practice of law” defined.
The phrase “practice law” as used in this Chapter is defined to be performing any legal service for any other person, firm or corporation, with or without compensation, specifically including the preparation or aiding in the preparation of deeds, mortgages, wills, trust instruments, inventories, accounts.....
Click to expand...

Using a quitclaim deed is not practice of law without a license.
 
JiminWilton said:
What's the statute of limitations on practicing law without a license? If it hasn't passed, when the PT loses this one, they can charge Jason with that for the quitclaim deed.
§84-2.1. “Practice of law” defined.
The phrase “practice law” as used in this Chapter is defined to be performing any legal service for any other person, firm or corporation, with or without compensation, specifically including the preparation or aiding in the preparation of deeds, mortgages, wills, trust instruments, inventories, accounts.....
Click to expand...

You do not have to have an attorney or be one to write up such documents like this quit claim deed, or wills etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 129 more.
Total: 2,179 (members: 130, guests: 2,049)

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
2,049
Total visitors
2,179
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,739
Messages
18,098,957
Members
230,917
Latest member
CP95
Back
Top