State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-18 Feb 2012

[Talina]

There are many remarks that the elderly, educational, female figure toy wearing pink looks like a man. I beg to differ.

Yes, you do and so do others.

What we don't know and neither do you is what you would have thought at the age of 2 1/2 and if it would have mattered to you at all if you were in CY's situation doing what she did.

 

[otto]

No snark - but I don't understand the ongoing argument about this subject. It's subjective. You think the doll looks like a woman. Personally I think the doll looks more like a man than a woman, and I think it bears a passing resemblance to JY.

Just for fun, I showed my 9 year old son the picture from the trial that was previously posted and asked if it was a woman or man doll, and he said "that's a man." Then I showed him the other picture of the doll that was posted in this thread and asked if he thought it could possibly be a woman, and he said: "It still looks like a guy to me. Do you think it's a cross-dresser? It sure doesn't look like a lady." He knows nothing about the case, so I consider him a pretty unbiased source.

Sorry - I do have a point with all this. The doll might look like a woman to some or even most people, but obviously there are at least some people who think it looks like a man - including grown-ups and at least one older child (my son) - all of whom should theoretically be as good if not better than CY at recognizing the gender of a doll. CY was not even 3 years old at the time. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that she either mistook the toy for a man or randomly chose one of the two remaining human-like dolls to represent the attacker. And I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that some or all of the jurors will have the same line of thinking.

The discussion relates to whether the jury can interpret the elderly woman as male, what they can infer, and some have suggested that the elderly woman looks like a male so the jury will automatically assume it's Jason. Factually, it is a woman. Is the jury allowed to make leaps with evidence, regardless of the age of the source, and assume that although the witness identified a female, the witness actually meant a male? There are reasons that the testimony of a two year old is not usually included at trial ... this seems like a legal boundary that shouldn't be crossed and if it can be crossed when evaluating one piece of evidence, does it apply to all the evidence, or just that evidence? Can the jury make the leap and assume that when the gas attendant identified her customer as 5' tall, she really meant the same as her son: 5'11", that when the night audit clerk said he noticed the rock after delivering papers he meant he saw the camera earlier ... assume Jason did it?

 

[Just the Fax]

She did not testify that "at the same moment" she saw the other other vehicle she stated that she did see another vehicle right after parked immediately to her right on Blue Sage.

Here is her story.....listen for her reference to Blue Sage and how it relates to the car she "saw" on Birchleaf.
This witness has problems...IMO

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...4/#/vid9759994

 

[Allusonz]

She didn't strike me as that type



I thought the story made a lot of sense.



She had been driving that route for 21 years. It was the only way out of the neighborhood. From in front of 5108 Birchleaf, Blue Sage is just up ahead. If the entire street is dark, I imagine she would very easily notice a lit up delivery van at Blue Sage.

As well there there was substantiation between the newspaper delivery person and herself. Although not exactly the same it does lead more creadance to their testimony.

 

[Allusonz]

Here is her story.....listen for her reference to Blue Sage and how it relates to the car she "saw" on Birchleaf.


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...4/#/vid9759994

I did the first time around and again just lately but thanks

ETA When I state again, I meant the testimony she gave in 2011 as I recalled her testimony differently than what had been stated in the post.

 

[Just the Fax]

I did the first time around and again just lately but thanks

ETA When I state again, I meant the testimony she gave in 2011 as I recalled her testimony differently than what had been stated in the post.

Well, we disagree.
But then again, what else is new

 

[Allusonz]

The discussion relates to whether the jury can interpret the elderly woman as male, what they can infer, and some have suggested that the elderly woman looks like a male so the jury will automatically assume it's Jason. Factually, it is a woman. Is the jury allowed to make leaps with evidence, regardless of the age of the source, and assume that although the witness identified a female, the witness actually meant a male? There are reasons that the testimony of a two year old is not usually included at trial ... this seems like a legal boundary that shouldn't be crossed and if it can be crossed when evaluating one piece of evidence, does it apply to all the evidence, or just that evidence? Can the jury make the leap and assume that when the gas attendant identified her customer as 5' tall, she really meant the same as her son: 5'11", that when the night audit clerk said he noticed the rock after delivering papers he meant he saw the camera earlier ... assume Jason did it?

The 64 million dollar quesiton...

How will this jury consider this evidence.

After pondering this I wonder if it will be from the thinking of a young child at 2 1/2 years or the perception of an adult.

 

[Just the Fax]

As well there there was substaniation between the newspaper delivery person and herself. Although not exactly the same it does lead more creadance to their testimony.

The newspaper man (Travis Best) said he drove a regular mini van.
The postal clerk was very specific...this was not a mini-van, it was a boxy commercial van.

And we are supposed to believe she saw a man's ring on the steering wheel and a woman with "bushy hair" in a soccer mom car...really :waitasec:

 

[Allusonz]

The newspaper man (Travis Best) said he drove a regular mini van.
The postal clerk was very specific...this was not a mini-van, it was a boxy commercial van.

And we are supposed to believe she saw a man's ring on the steering wheel and a woman with "bushy hair" in a soccer mom car...really :waitasec:

They both testified that the house had lights on.

She specifically stated that she was not good with vehicles but did know the difference between a vokeswagon and a van.

As for something on his finger she stated she could be wrong on that aspect.

As well she stated that she could be wrong that the passenger was female but it was the impression she got.

 

[Talina]

Does she use the term "soccer mom car" and if so, does she give any examples of what type of car she means?

 

[otto]

The 64 million dollar quesiton...

How will this jury consider this evidence.

After pondering this I wonder if it will be from the thinking of a young child at 2 1/2 years or the perception of an adult.

It seems to me that without testimony regarding how to interpret the information, by law the jury should stick to the facts. Perhaps gritguy can enlighten us on how interpretation of the facts by juries can be modified with 2.5 year old witnesses. The Judge did say that by allowing the testimony it meant that all the movements of the child in the house would be considered by the jury.

Is that why there's a chance that more of the 911 tape could come in ... because now the actions of the child have been admitted into evidence ... so if the defense asks the wrong question with the daycare employee, more 911 tape could be played?

 

[Just the Fax]

Does she use the term "soccer mom car" and if so, does she give any examples of what type of car she means?

Thats what she said.
She apparently does not know what a minivan is, because that was not what she saw as the newspaper truck (obviously mistaken)

Sooo,what did the postal clerk really see?
What can we believe?

 

[Allusonz]

I've been wondering this as well. Why does no one mention this? According to the time stamps, these images were taken very close together, < 1 min. They have to be the same shirt, but they look completely different. Playing with both images I am unable to manipulate exposure or brightness settings to provide similar contrast as shown in hallway black shirt. Under no scenario, with any photo anywhere, am I able to manipulate a black shirt to appear lighter than a brown haired subject, as seen in the photo below.

All images contain data that indicate they have been extensively processed with some type of image-editing software.


Searching Compression Signatures: (3327 built-in, 0 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
CAM:[SONY ] [CYBERSHOT U ] [ ] Yes
SW :[Adobe Photoshop 7.0 ] [Save As 07 ]
SW :[Apple Quicktime ] [0466-0467 ]
SW :[Digital Photo Professiona] [05 ]
SW :[IJG Library ] [075 ]
SW :[MS Paint ] [ ]
SW :[MS Visio ] [ ]
SW :[ZoomBrowser EX ] [low ]

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [075 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [075 ]
SW :[idImager ] [075 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [075 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [075 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [075 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [075 ]
SW :[XnView ] [075 ]

NOTE: JFIF COMMENT field is known software
Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited

Thank you for this.

It does appear that there has been editing done on much of this.

I am trying to figure out how JY went from being in a suit at 23:58:12 and in approximately 1 minute went to what we are seeing in the pictures.

I think it would require a Houdini...

 

[gracielee]

Here is her story.....listen for her reference to Blue Sage and how it relates to the car she "saw" on Birchleaf.
This witness has problems...IMO

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...4/#/vid9759994

This link doesn't work for me.

 

[Allusonz]

This link doesn't work for me.

Maybe ths one will work. Hope it does

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9759994/#/vid9759994

 

[otto]

Thank you for this.

It does appear that there has been editing done on much of this.

I am trying to figure out how JY went from being in a suit at 23:58:12 and in approximately 1 minute went to what we are seeing in the pictures.

I think it would require a Houdini...

It may be poor lighting on a pullover that isn't tight on the waist. I was just looking at this photo ... the white line is added to show where I think the arm is ...

 

[gracielee]

They both testified that the house had lights on.

She specifically stated that she was not good with vehicles but did know the difference between a vokeswagon and a van.

As for something on his finger she stated she could be wrong on that aspect.

As well she stated that she could be wrong that the passenger was female but it was the impression she got.

So let me get this straight. 'She could be wrong' about numerous things. Her description of the vehicle was way off from Gracie's, yet we *believe* everything she says, while Gracie is wrong and a liar because she has trouble judging the height of someone in feet and inches.

Go figure.

 

[Talina]

It seems to me that without testimony regarding how to interpret the information, by law the jury should stick to the facts. Perhaps gritguy can enlighten us on how interpretation of the facts by juries can be modified with 2.5 year old witnesses. The Judge did say that by allowing the testimony it meant that all the movements of the child in the house would be considered by the jury.

Is that why there's a chance that more of the 911 tape could come in ... because now the actions of the child have been admitted into evidence ... so if the defense asks the wrong question with the daycare employee, more 911 tape could be played?

BBM

Really? He said that? I missed that part of the discussion if he said that. I heard him say that he understood that the PT wanted this testimony in because of the inference that can be made that CY witnessed the murder but then was allowed to survive - the inference being it is more likely not a stranger that would care. He said this was more probative than prejudicial and would let it in. Then said he wanted to hear a proffer from the witness before he ruled on whether on not she could testify to what CY said in addition to testifying to what she observed the playacting to be. Once he heard her testiomon proffered he said she can testify to what CY said to her before the nap but not after because he felt the talk before the nap was directly related to what she was re-enacting but it is unclear if that is the case after the nap.

I do no remember any thing at all like what you said. Was there other discussion that perhaps I missed?

 

[gracielee]

The newspaper man (Travis Best) said he drove a regular mini van.
The postal clerk was very specific...this was not a mini-van, it was a boxy commercial van.

And we are supposed to believe she saw a man's ring on the steering wheel and a woman with "bushy hair" in a soccer mom car...really :waitasec:

Well sure, but Gracie is all wrong. Go figure. Three days after the crime she gave a good description, identified JLY, and his car, and described the direction and path he took leaving the station.

 

[Talina]

Thats what she said.
She apparently does not know what a minivan is, because that was not what she saw as the newspaper truck (obviously mistaken)

Sooo,what did the postal clerk really see?
What can we believe?

I find it fascinating that people believe this witness but say Gracie is questionable.

IMO