State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-8-12

[Cammy]

BBM. I think the Judge will decide to instruct the jury that all that really matters to the jury is sworn testimony and whether it was credible. Gracie has made so many conflicting statements, I don't see how any juror could believe anything is accurate.

JMO

I don't understand how the regular customer who came in every am to chat with her and have coffee has suddenly morphed into a deceased newspaper person...........



OMG, if that were true and that was what she said in the beginning, they simply would have went to the news carrier dept and found him easily and interviewed him.

Instead they placed video surveillance in the store, printed up flyers to try and find this mysterious person, when all they had to do was go to his office.

Really? Come on !!

They could have found him in an hour.!

 

[otto]

Evidently so. This has to be troubling to the Judge. She did not inform him of this tidbit when he held the hearing to decide whether to allow her testimony before the last trial. If he had known this, I doubt he would have allowed her at all because she was not shown a proper photo lineup. Jason's photo was all over the news by the time cops showed up and flashed his photo to her.

JMO

I'm curious ... if her testimony is significantly different than the first time, can her testimony be stricken? I'm not sure if it is significantly different yet, but there are some major differences.

 

[NCEast]

BBM. I think the Judge will decide to instruct the jury that all that really matters to the jury is sworn testimony and whether it was credible. Gracie has made so many conflicting statements, I don't see how any juror could believe anything is accurate.

JMO

Tomorrow may be a mess but this jury doesn't know about her testimony from the last trial so that's a plus for the prosecution.

 

[Cammy]

I'm curious ... if her testimony is significantly different than the first time, can her testimony be stricken? I'm not sure if it is significantly different yet, but there are some major differences.

She says she did not watch the news until a few weeks later, but she knew of the murder the first night from a friend.

So, when police came in asking her questions about a guy, what was she supposed to think ?

That he was wanted for stealing a Snickers Bar?

 

[Wyn]

You picking me up at the airport??

Sure. :angel:

 

[Cammy]

Tomorrow may be a mess but this jury doesn't know about her testimony from the last trial so that's a plus for the prosecution.

They are going to know tomorrow.

Everything she said in the last trial is admissable to come into this one.

 

[otto]

Evidently so. This has to be troubling to the Judge. She did not inform him of this tidbit when he held the hearing to decide whether to allow her testimony before the last trial. If he had known this, I doubt he would have allowed her at all because she was not shown a proper photo lineup. Jason's photo was all over the news by the time cops showed up and flashed his photo to her.

JMO

She claimed that she remembered him because of his comments and that she recognized him because she remembered him. She gave the first identification 3 days after the murder. If he had been all over the news in those three days, if she regularly watched the news and if she had discussed the case with a friend, then is her identification still valid?

"Defense attorneys argued that detectives did not follow identification procedures and might have created "an impermissible taint" on Dahms' memory by not showing her a photo lineup.

Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens, however, found there was nothing improper about how detectives conducted multiple interviews and that Dahms' story was her honest recollection, not something resulting form investigators' suggestions.

"'This is the man I saw. He got in my face,'" Stephens said, repeating Dahms' testimony. "He made an impression on her."

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9624237/

""She said (that) she was almost positive, and she remembered this only because of his attitude and because he was not a regular customer of the business," Ikerd said"

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/9619264/

 

[otto]

My feeling about the night auditor's failure to notice the black camera was because he was back there in that room napping.

He probably was, but he changed his testimony between the two trials. It gives the impression he was telling the court what he thought the prosecution wanted him to say.

 

[otto]

I do agree with you, so he lies under oath to cover his a&&??

He definitely lied one of the two times, so his story about the rock on the sidewalk could also be based on wanting to please the prosecution.

 

[NCEast]

They are going to know tomorrow.

Everything she said in the last trial is admissable to come into this one.

That very well may be. If the pros. is any good, they will redirect and get some of it straightened out. If the def. recrosses, she may flee the stand. I probably would.

 

[otto]

Where again were the clothes he was wearing when on video?

How often did he call her sister anyway? Besides to pick up that fax?

He called Meredith three times after lunch time.

 

[NCEast]

He definitely lied one of the two times, so his story about the rock on the sidewalk could also be based on wanting to please the prosecution.

I didn't get a good feel for him during the first trial, didn't today. He may have memory problems, he may be lying, or lied previously, or slept through the entire night and has no idea about any of it.... but the most I got from him today was that he didn't want to be there and he'd say most anything to be done with all of it.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm curious ... if her testimony is significantly different than the first time, can her testimony be stricken? I'm not sure if it is significantly different yet, but there are some major differences.

Yes, a Judge can strike testimony but it might not even be necessary. I think if he does so, it will be because her testimony differs dramatically from what she told HIM at the hearing about the defense motion about the lack of a photo lineup.

His ruling hinged on her testimony. I have no idea what the Judge will decide but it seems a bit of a mess for the prosecution.

JMO

 

[sureLocke]

Yes, there appears to be a conspiracy to make JY look guilty. GL and the clerks at the hotel are constructing stories to make it appear JY could be guilty. But why would they do such a thing, do you think they are being compensated?

 

[NCEast]

Yes, a Judge can strike testimony but it might not even be necessary. I think if he does so, it will be because her testimony differs dramatically from what she told HIM at the hearing about the defense motion about the lack of a photo lineup.

His ruling hinged on her testimony. I have no idea what the Judge will decide but it seems a bit of a mess for the prosecution.

JMO

I must have missed what she told the judge. Was that today when the jury went to lunch?

 

[Cammy]

I didn't get a good feel for him during the first trial, didn't today. He may have memory problems, he may be lying, or lied previously, or slept through the entire night and has no idea about any of it.... but the most I got from him today was that he didn't want to be there and he'd say most anything to be done with all of it.

I agree !!

I didn't get to hear Elmer today, b/c of audio problems.

How was he?

 

[Cammy]

I must have missed what she told the judge. Was that today when the jury went to lunch?

No, that was back in the pre~lim hearing.

 

[NCEast]

Yes, there appears to be a conspiracy to make JY look guilty. GL and the clerks at the hotel are constructing stories to make it appear JY could be guilty. But why would they do such a thing, do you think they are being compensated?

I do not think in the least there is a conspiracy among them to lie and/or to make JY look guilty. I think all of them didn't want to be there the first time, certainly not today. Additionally, and not to be ugly, I don't think they are the upper echelon of Mensa. Compared to Me.F. and SS, who were articulate and intelligent in their testimonies, these people just don't measure up by comparison. It's been over 5 years since all of this happened, they were not aware on the dates of 11/5 and 7 that they were even involved in any capacity in a murder cover up so they were not paying attention to every single detail that happened during those hours. I would not have been....so they are having to go back in time, in their own limited memories, and reconstruct stuff that they may have little memory of. I feel that each is honest with absolutely no cover up or conspiracy, much less compensation, involved.

 

[Cammy]

I am so confused, I am looking at my notes, and I see a lot more that has to do with Gracie will come in through Spivey.

There is a time when Gracie told the court that Spivey and Holt drove all the way up to see her because her information was so important.

Which leads me back to the same question, I have had for 5+ years,

If she is so credible, if she is so important, why didn't they arrest him back then?

Busted alibi +eye witness =arrest.

 

[MyBelle]

I must have missed what she told the judge. Was that today when the jury went to lunch?

I'm talking about what she told the Judge in the hearing held prior to the last trial. She insisted she remembered Jason only because he got in her face. She never mentioned that she knew about the murder when cops first showed his photo to her. The Judge decided her recollection was "honest." I can't even begin to imagine what he's thinking about it now that he knows she suffered brain damage as a child and also has changed so many details.

JMO