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

[Just the Fax]

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...

Suit :waitasec:

Fact is Jay is in this shot, right before midnight.
Does it really matter if that was him at 23:58:12?

 

[Talina]

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.

I was thinking the exact same thing in the last few minutes reading about this witness. I just don't get it.

 

[otto]

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?

It was in the preliminary hearing before allowing the daycare employee to testify and after each party had registered the legal arguments. The Judge said that he did not want a voir dire ... but he heard the one witness and, as you say, ruled half and half. I think it was a very favorable ruling for the prosecution.

 

[otto]

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.

I believe that she didn't identify the clothes until much later, got the height wrong and substantially changed her testimony between the two trials.

 

[Allusonz]

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.

For anyone that knows me I have a huge issue with eyewitness testimony. During a training course I gave a 5 minute video then asked them right down everything they saw.

It was totally bizarre.

I even had one individual put down that the light was a certain colour when there were no lights just a stop sign.

 

[otto]

For anyone that knows me I have a huge issue with eyewitness testimony. During a training course I gave a 5 minute video then asked them right down everything they saw.

It was totally bizarre.

I even had one individual put down that the light was a certain colour when there were no lights just a stop sign.

What about the eyewitness testimony of a 2 year old?

 

[Just the Fax]

I believe that she didn't identify the clothes until much later, got the height wrong and substantially changed her testimony between the two trials.

Huh?

She identified his clothes to Spivey soon after the encounter....."Tall, blondish hair, wearing blue jeans and a Tshirt".(suppression hearing before trial).

Changed her testimony between the 2 trials?
Come on otto, please stop twisting the facts.
Thank You.

 

[Talina]

I believe that she didn't identify the clothes until much later, got the height wrong and substantially changed her testimony between the two trials.

If she did that, then the DT missed a golden opportunity to discredit her completely by pulling out her prior testimony while she was on the stand.

IMO

 

[otto]

Huh?

She identified his clothes to Spivey soon after the encounter....."Tall, blondish hair, wearing blue jeans and a Tshirt".(suppression hearing before trial).

Changed her testimony between the 2 trials?
Come on otto, please stop twisting the facts.
Thank You.

In the first trial, she was asked by the defense on what dates she provided the information, and the bit about wearing jeans was much later than 3 days after the murder. She testified in court that Jason was the same height as she: 5'. As you stated prior to the second trial, she would be rehabilitated ... and she was. She clarified in the second trial that her son, at 5'11", is also the same as 5'. There's no question that she contradicted herself in the two trials.

She is an unreliable witness.

 

[otto]

If she did that, then the DT missed a golden opportunity to discredit her completely by pulling out her prior testimony while she was on the stand.

IMO

They took the golden opportunity ... and they had her certified as having a permanent brain injury for which she has received gov't compensation since childhood.

 

[dmaxphil]

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:

This "Postal Clerk" lived on Birchleaf Dr and drove by 5108 every single time she left her house, for 21 years. I am inclined to believe that she might notice when something was out of the ordinary in her neighborhood.

She would have seen the bushy hair when her bright lights hit the side of the car in the drive.

No idea if its possible to see a mans face, hair color and finger jewelry only from light on dashboard instrument panel though. More likely, I guess, if the car headlights were off at the time. I may need to go back to determine if that question was asked. I just watched this and can't remember.

Also, she admitted she'd never seen that van before. She thought it was a newspaper van because the guy at the wheel had papers in front of him.

 

[Just the Fax]

For anyone that knows me I have a huge issue with eyewitness testimony. During a training course I gave a 5 minute video then asked them right down everything they saw.

It was totally bizarre.

I even had one individual put down that the light was a certain colour when there were no lights just a stop sign.

Ok Allusonz, guess we can drop both the postal clerk and the Cstore clerk.
No problem here.
Gracie was just a little gravy.

 

[Talina]

They took the golden opportunity ... and they had her certified as having a permanent brain injury for which she has received gov't compensation since childhood.

I totally did not come away from watching that testimony thinking the DT had discredited her at all and what do you mean they had her certified as having a permanent brain injury? They mentioned it, she answered it but I saw nothing about anything being certified.

I suppose this is one more area where I'll have to just sit back and accept that I totally disagree with several people on this particular witness. Further discussion by me on this one will likely send me over the edge as I am totally put off by how some people have described her.

IMO

 

[Allusonz]

What about the eyewitness testimony of a 2 year old?

I will state the same whether you are 2 or 102.

Some individuals are very good eyewitnesses, others are not.

I as well am interested in this as I was shot by my biological father at a very young age.

I vaguely remember the gun. I recall no pain etc.

What I did keep getting was a recurring image of a grandfatherly type and being in the HUGE chair in which I recall my feet did not reach the end of the chair in a smelly room. Over the years I kept questioning my mother about it and she simply had no idea what it could possibly be.

It was actually an aunt that said hold it you were taken into the judges chambers and he spoke to you for about 2 hours.

My industrious aunt made inquiries and we now feel that that part may be partial memories of speaking to the judge.

The rest others have had to fill in for me so my memory is as reliable as what they have told me.

 

[Just the Fax]

Yes, dmaxphil, we saw your support of the postal clerk before...her 21 years and all.
I think she is a fraud...you think otherwise.
That's ok. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Talina]

This "Postal Clerk" lived on Birchleaf Dr and drove by 5108 every single time she left her house, for 21 years. I am inclined to believe that she might notice when something was out of the ordinary in her neighborhood.

She would have seen the bushy hair when her bright lights hit the side of the car in the drive.

No idea if its possible to see a mans face, hair color and finger jewelry only from light on dashboard instrument panel though. More likely, I guess, if the car headlights were off at the time. I may need to go back to determine if that question was asked. I just watched this and can't remember.

Also, she admitted she'd never seen that van before. She thought it was a newspaper van because the guy at the wheel had papers in front of him.

BBM

You know, speaking for myself, that actually has just the opposite effect.

I lived in the same neighborhood for 20 years. Drove the same route in and out going to work, kids to school, grocery store, etc. Over time, I was just in auto mode going about my business to and fro and did not pay attention to one single thing. A neighbor could move, get a new car, etc and I'd notice long after because of just running on auto. If something terrible or shocking, say a fire, wreck, etc of course I noticed, but everyday run of the mill things such as who's car is parked where, lights on or off, nope. Wouldn't have noticed as it is just normal day to day living environment.

IMO

 

[otto]

I totally did not come away from watching that testimony thinking the DT had discredited her at all and what do you mean they had her certified as having a permanent brain injury? They mentioned it, she answered it but I saw nothing about anything being certified.

I suppose this is one more area where I'll have to just sit back and accept that I totally disagree with several people on this particular witness. Further discussion by me on this one will likely send me over the edge as I am totally put off by how some people have described her.

IMO

When I wrote "certified", what I meant is that it has been entered into testimony or evidence that the gas station attendant suffered a permanent brain injury as a child and has memory problems. She contradicted herself during testimony given at the first and second trials.

That's problematic in terms of being a reliable witness.

 

[borndem]

I think he's on the Grant Haze murder trial, and he did another high profile over the summer. They've got to spread out the big cases, specifically time wise. I don't know when Haze goes to trial (if it does), but I think the Young trial was impeded last time by Cumming's almost overlap with BC.

O/T -
<<shiver>> Grant Hayes makes my skin crawl big-time. Yet another full-blown Narcissist of the highest order with a pure T nut for a wife. <<brrrrrr>> You think Hayes (I refuse to refer to him as Haze) might plead, Wolfpack?

And Jason Williford is scheduled for some proceeding on 1st Degree Murder, 1st Burglary & 1st Rape tomorrow, along with our Saacks as 1st Chair, in Courtroom 003B -- we should have quite the crowd!! I guess it's just to get scheduling officially on the docket -- that one is supposed to be J. Stephens' case as well. This little juggle could be interesting... that one is officially scheduled for 03/06/12. Schedules and personnel are tight and stacking up for Stephens and 003B.

 

[gracielee]

I was thinking the exact same thing in the last few minutes reading about this witness. I just don't get it.

I listened to a bit of her prior testimony to refresh my recollection of her. So she is driving down the road at 5:30 in the a.m., just driving past a house, yet she has the time to supposedly do, watch, see numerous different things, all in the, what would it take, 5 seconds or so, to pass by a neighbors driveway? She's watching for deer, see's a car that's 'bigger than a station wagon', has her brights on, thinks she's blinded 'em, see's a big square van at the intersection two houses up and to the right, looks back again at the 'bigger than a station wagon', see's it has it's dashboard lights on???? See's a white man and a bushy haired stranger. < sorry, had to add the bushy haired stranger in there, as it's so appropo>, see's the big square van with all it's lights on, see's a man in the van, looks back again and see's guy in 'bigger than a station wagon is wearing a shiny ring, yadda yadda yadda. But she 'could be wrong' about any and all these things..........:waitasec:

 

[gracielee]

They took the golden opportunity ... and they had her certified as having a permanent brain injury for which she has received gov't compensation since childhood.

And yet she's held down jobs, involving money transactions, customer transactions, usage of a computer, etc. Me thinks some people are a bit prejudiced against Gracie. And I think that is simply wrong. Sounds like junior high kids picking on poor Gracie. IMO:maddening: