State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-8-12

[fromageball]

I don't find his planning to be unusual or sharing the details with his wife. He was on a business trip, headed toward the mountains where cell reception was poor and she had previously miscarried a baby. I would expect a husband to share such information. This is the type of detail that the prosecution is trying to substitute for actual evidence. There has yet to be any evidence that he had anger management issues or a history of such incredible violence.

JMO

He gave details when Shelly asked if he would be back for an NC State game. He said he was going to Cracker Barrel when they asked if he would like to have dinner with them. I don't think the details were odd either.

Also he didn't exactly plan ahead...he was leaving at 7pm for a business meeting the next morning. It doesn't sound like he did a lot of planning to stay at a hotel chain he uses a lot, go to Cracker Barrel on the way up there, and only want to drive a few hours that night so he could get to bed at a reasonable hour.

 

[octobermoon]

Gracie up next

 

[gracielee]

Yes, I think the prosecution has a pretty firm grip on the Taft--it's Taft--case. But, for the past year or so when I think it's going to be a pretty tight trial for the prosecution is when the juries have come back with insane verdicts.
I am still trying to find out what the hold up is in the Raven Abaroa case. I was thinking that trial was supposed to begin last fall. Anybody know?

Yes, Taft, thank you. Don't know where I got Tate from. And you are right, these juries lately have been questionable to say the least. I haven't heard anything about Raven since he was arrested. Don't know what the hold up is there, I'm assuming defense continuances, hoping some witnesses will forget.

 

[Cammy]

The last trial, the prosecution seemed to bet its entire case on the fact that Jason didn't talk to cops. It was more than obvious they didn't anticipate Jason would take the stand and testify. After he did so, the Judge couldn't allow the prosecution to use that previous silence against him as evidence of guilt. The jurors as individuals may very well have wanted to hold it against him. Four jurors refused to budge.

JMO

Well, they can't do that anymore, can they?

All the time they wanted him to speak, and then when he does, they were not ready.

 

[fran]

While it's break, I just wanted to say something. I know many get impatient and think they're going over and over stuff too much, they need to speed it up. Some think other testimony was unnecessary or irrelevant and or think the pros is spinning wheels and not making sense.

Believe me, I learned a lot watching daily and reading the actual trial transcripts, (albeit a day or two after the fact) of the Laci Peterson case. I sat here for months watching, reading, then watching all the talking heads nightly going over every detail of the day's court session and the ENDLESS criticism of the pros theory, manner of questioning, alleging the pros was doing a TERRIBLE job.

I didn't agree with any of them. They didn't get it. It's surprising as many of the TH's were ex pros, and or attorneys.

All one has to do is look at the conviction rate of the pros, and you'll get the idea that they are doing what they always do and have been getting results. With this pros I have no idea what the conviction rate is, but the Peterson pros had over 95% conviction rate. I felt the criticism was misplaced. He was up against a SEASONED high profile attorney who played for the cameras on a daily basis. While the pros just kept plugging along like he had always done.

It was near the end of the trial that everyone finally got it! They're laying the ground work. Doing the busy work first. They're doing the boring stuff. The meat of the case come near the end and at the closing. In the Peterson case it was the final witness for the pros, lead det who tied everything together with his list of 40 + reasons they suspected SP and why they kept looking in the Bay for the missing victim. It was dramatic and the def NEVER recovered from that, IMHO, in the eyes of the jury or the eyes of the public at large.

Moral is. This is their JOB and they know what they're doing. We may get bored, but believe me, the jury isn't bored.

JMHO
fran

 

[Cammy]

Gracie up next

Wow, does she look different........!!!

 

[Grammy Jean]

Good fathers don't often create and then quickly erase their unborn third child.

JMO

So tell me do you believe Scott Peterson did not kill Laci and create and erase his unborn child????

 

[fran]

Ya'll are pages ahead of me but, fwiw, the idea that spousal abuse is limited to physical violence is also a fallacy. JME

http://www.domesticviolence.org/violence-wheel

Yep! Isn't there a saying kinda' like, "A verbally abusive relationship is only an inch from physical violence?"

or something like that.

fran

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm glad Gracie is speaking louder this time. Or maybe the microphones are finally working.

 

[fromageball]

LE didn't "prove" his alibi, they only confirmed that he checked into the hotel and some mighty strange things happened while he was there. You've forgotten that Spivey drove the route, twice I believe, once at night, once in the day. Spivey was able to prove with his timing of the trip that Jason had ample opportunity to return to Raleigh, kill Michelle, and get back to the hotel. Gracie's testimony is just the icing on the cake.

It doesn't matter if Jason "could have" driven the route in that time period. Jason's alibi holds because there is evidence that he checked into the hotel. He doesn't have to account for every second of his time - if the prosecutors want to say that he left the hotel to kill Michelle, they have to prove it. They didn't prove it last time, but maybe they will this time. The gas station clerk didn't sway the first jury and I don't think it will sway the second either.

I'm watching the gas station clerk now(didn't see her testimony during the first trial) and if I were on the jury I wouldn't put too much weight on this testimony. JMO.

 

[Bottle Cap]

He gave details when Shelly asked if he would be back for an NC State game. He said he was going to Cracker Barrel when they asked if he would like to have dinner with them. I don't think the details were odd either.

Also he didn't exactly plan ahead...he was leaving at 7pm for a business meeting the next morning. It doesn't sound like he did a lot of planning to stay at a hotel chain he uses a lot, go to Cracker Barrel on the way up there, and only want to drive a few hours that night so he could get to bed at a reasonable hour.

What is a "reasonable hour"? If he was worried about his meeting, he could have driven another 2 hours and gotten closer, instead of lurking about in stairwells in Hillsville. Interesting concept of time management.

 

[fran]

OK, is this a little different than the first trial? She said it was the newspaperman who was the other witness in the store. Is this a new development?

The first trial they said they didn't know who the other alleged witness was.

TIA
fran

 

[nursebeeme]

no wonder they focused on the papers in the hotel... are they going to go somewhere with the newspapers?/newspaper man?

 

[NCEast]

Wow, does she look different........!!!

I think she looks terrific. She is dressed properly and respectfully, something a lot of folks don't do any more.
She's doing well so far with her testimony. I hope she won't get rattled.

 

[distracted 1976]

I think she looks terrific. She is dressed properly and respectfully, something a lot of folks don't do any more.
She's doing well so far with her testimony. I hope she won't get rattled.

As someone who didn't see the first trial. I think she is doing great! She was very definite that JY was who pumped the gas.

 

[Cammy]

no wonder they focused on the papers in the hotel... are they going to go somewhere with the newspapers?/newspaper man?

Not really, but that is not what she said originally.

She said it was a reguar customer drinking coffee.

Then at a later date, she added the newspaper man.

Then we learned the newspaper man died.

She is telling a different story now.

 

[ncsu95]

They need to address the issue with the height before handing this over to the defense.

 

[Pocono Sleuther]

While it's break, I just wanted to say something. I know many get impatient and think they're going over and over stuff too much, they need to speed it up. Some think other testimony was unnecessary or irrelevant and or think the pros is spinning wheels and not making sense.

Believe me, I learned a lot watching daily and reading the actual trial transcripts, (albeit a day or two after the fact) of the Laci Peterson case. I sat here for months watching, reading, then watching all the talking heads nightly going over every detail of the day's court session and the ENDLESS criticism of the pros theory, manner of questioning, alleging the pros was doing a TERRIBLE job.

I didn't agree with any of them. They didn't get it. It's surprising as many of the TH's were ex pros, and or attorneys.

All one has to do is look at the conviction rate of the pros, and you'll get the idea that they are doing what they always do and have been getting results. With this pros I have no idea what the conviction rate is, but the Peterson pros had over 95% conviction rate. I felt the criticism was misplaced. He was up against a SEASONED high profile attorney who played for the cameras on a daily basis. While the pros just kept plugging along like he had always done.

It was near the end of the trial that everyone finally got it! They're laying the ground work. Doing the busy work first. They're doing the boring stuff. The meat of the case come near the end and at the closing. In the Peterson case it was the final witness for the pros, lead det who tied everything together with his list of 40 + reasons they suspected SP and why they kept looking in the Bay for the missing victim. It was dramatic and the def NEVER recovered from that, IMHO, in the eyes of the jury or the eyes of the public at large.

Moral is. This is their JOB and they know what they're doing. We may get bored, but believe me, the jury isn't bored.

JMHO
fran

Bravo Fran. You are SO right. This is the blueprint of the building, if you will. When the finishing touches are done towards the end of the trial, we will all see how it ties together. Each person on the stand is building a foundation from the ground up for the pros. Its not always pretty or interesting but its necessary. So far I'd say the pros has done a good job of portraying JY as an immature and mostly uncaring husband...at best. At worst, if I had zero knowledge of the case and were a juror, I'd already be questioning his innocence simply because of what they've shown about his character as a man. I think thats a damn good start.

 

[Cammy]

OK, is this a little different than the first trial? She said it was the newspaperman who was the other witness in the store. Is this a new development?

The first trial they said they didn't know who the other alleged witness was.

TIA
fran

Yes, Fran, you are exactly right.

 

[NCEast]

BH just keeps getting better and better. Hardly any ahmmms and errrrrrs today and she is clear and concise.