Otto, I'm very curious. What exactly was it that made you decide that Jason wasn't guilty? I have never seen any evidence that would get me to change my mind, yet you did a one-eighty over the past few years. What was the defining piece of information that made you change your mind?
State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-6-12
- Thread starter Just the Fax
- Start date
- Status
Specifically, how does the miscarriage relate to the murder?
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
The defining information is that the prosecution has ignored evidence that pointed away from Jason. The theory is that Jason drugged his daughter, yet there is someone else's DNA on the bottle cap. The theory is that Jason tampered with the jewelry box and made jewelry disappear, yet someone else's DNA is on the jewelry box. The rock that was introduced in court has 3 alleles that match Jason and they have suggested that this means Jason touched that rock. For all we know, the three alleles that match could be caucasion, male and blond. It's absurd that the rock was introduced during the last trial.
The strongest argument the prosecution had was that Jason wouldn't cooperate ... but who would given the fact that he was warned right away that police suspected him even though he was out of town.
Then we have the gas attendant who couldn't describe Jason, but agreed with investigators that the photo was the customer and the car was white. She could not describe Jason at any time after she saw him.
The camera was unplugged shortly before midnight and we are supposed to believe that Jason did this because he didn't want to be seen entering the hotel 7 hours later. We have the hotel room that was supposedly unlocked or open, but a newspaper and bill were placed on or under the door and no one noticed that it was unlocked.
It goes on and on ... all the evidence seems to be a house of cards. There's nothing solid to hang on to and any solid evidence that exists (like DNA) is ignored by the prosecution.
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
You said recently you believe he likely did it, but had a problem with the evidence.
Now you say he is innocent.
Got it, thanks
Now you say he is innocent.
Got it, thanks
I will answer the question for you. The miscarriage specifically relates to the murder because of rumors that Jason deliberately drove the car down the embankment, deliberately intended to harm Michelle and deliberately caused the miscarriage. There is no other reason to have this witness testify to something that she knows nothing about.
Maybe the prosecution can elicit gossip about the time they were boating as well and suggest that this was another attempted murder.
If the prosecution wants to introduce any information about the accident and miscarriage, it should come from the officer that was there and a medical doctor, not the sister of the victim.
fran
Former Member
I didn't quite hear the entire discussion with the judge over the car accident incident. But what I got from it was the judge said the witness could not SAY or SPECULATE that the cause of the accident was the miscarriage. I believe she can testify about what she KNOWS, but she's not an expert doctor and canNOT give HER opinion about the cause of the miscarriage. The judge said only an expert could testify to that.
IMHO, the accident and subsequent miscarriage is relevant to the case as it leads up the the time period that MY was murdered. IF the jury thinks in THEIR mind that the accident was intentional, as many do, I would think it goes to the crutz of a 'circumstantial case.'
It's not any ONE thing that makes a person come to the conclusion they do. It's the TOTALITY of the evidence. (or circumstances)
At least how I've always looked at it.
JMHO, of course!
fran
IMHO, the accident and subsequent miscarriage is relevant to the case as it leads up the the time period that MY was murdered. IF the jury thinks in THEIR mind that the accident was intentional, as many do, I would think it goes to the crutz of a 'circumstantial case.'
It's not any ONE thing that makes a person come to the conclusion they do. It's the TOTALITY of the evidence. (or circumstances)
At least how I've always looked at it.
JMHO, of course!
fran
This is an unsolved case, in my opinion. Perhaps, during this trial, the case will be solved ... perhaps not.
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
Excuse me, are these rumors introduced at trial?
No. The miscarriage is just that...there was zero inference JLY caused it intentionally. Not sure why you are trying to blow this up.
The judge settled the minor objections and her state of mind will be allowed.
I don't think the evidence points away from Jason at all. DNA could have been on the jewelry box from it's purchase. Where did Jason get the medicine he used on Cassidy? Was it a pre-packaged sample, or was it one that he had open (for "display") in his sales meeting and a prospective client touched it? How many blonde males pick up rocks outside the back entrance to a hotel? Or would have a reason to do so?
Gracie did recognize Jason, I think the prosecution did a poor job of questioning her and she was nervous. He was angry and stood out, it was him.
The spouse is always a suspect. We know it's suppose to be "innocent until proven guilty" but Jason's "don't talk" routine was carried too far. He could have talked to LE with his attorney present. He had no interest in helping LE find the "real killer" because he couldn't.
How brilliant to unplug the camera so as not to be seen coming back in to a hotel when you aren't suppose to have left in the beginning. The card key never showed him entering the room after the initial check-in and entry, yet there he was at the front desk and he had to get back in, didn't he? It never registered...
Not sure if the hotel doors are different in this area than where you live, but the doors are very heavy. Easy to slip something in the door lock area and close the door but not lock it. I've tried to and it works.
It's called circumstantial evidence for a reason, and it all points to Jason. Party boy extraordinaire who was the only one who would gain from Michelle's death.
It's sad to see people make defining choices based on anger. Not just in Jason's case either.
It actually helps the defense more than the prosecution because Michelle promptly got pregnant again. There is no evidence she thought Jason was trying to kill her or the baby. This clearly was a couple who wanted a child. It does take two to tango.
JMO
ITA and apparently so does the judge. I do wonder if the prosecution is intentionally trying to lose this case. Trying to interject rumors as evidence is a sign of pure desperation.
JMO
It was only yesterday that I read on this forum that Jason killed two of his children.
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
Yep, I believe that 100%
We are talking about court TESTIMONY.
Nothing was said about that <modsnip>
nursebeeme
Registered User
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 53,158
- Reaction score
- 217
bumping this up in case anyone hasn't had a chance to read and thank the rules. this lands at random
nursebeeme
Registered User
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Messages
- 53,158
- Reaction score
- 217
peeps, we will not have personal attacks and snark in this thread. If your post is missing or modsnipped there is a reason for it.
I see that the prosecution is starting on an emotional note with the victim's sister. It reminds me of the Cooper trial where we had 2 weeks of emotionally based character assasination. I hope the Judge will keep the testimony focused on the evidence related to the murder.
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
Otto, you said the PT was introducing "rumors" about the wreck, inferring JLY tried to murder his wife and child. Sorry, but I never heard the slightest hint of that.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
"Starting on an emotional note?"
They are starting with the person who found MY's body. If someone else had found MY's body then they would have been the first called to the stand.
In the Cooper case they did the same thing, only that was the dog walker guy.
It's a chrono presentation, not a conspiracy. They haven't even gotten to the emotional part yet.
They are starting with the person who found MY's body. If someone else had found MY's body then they would have been the first called to the stand.
In the Cooper case they did the same thing, only that was the dog walker guy.
It's a chrono presentation, not a conspiracy. They haven't even gotten to the emotional part yet.
- Status