Personally, I totally see why the judge ruled against the post nap conversation. It seemed disjointed to me and could or could not have had anything to do with the outside doll play acting. We do not know how much time had lapsed between the two and to suggest that the two are somehow connected is a far stretch IMO without more to go on than what we know right now. Even if we knew more or had witnessed it ourselves, I don't think we could be 100% sure what CY was talking about. Heck she could have just been rambling about several things on her mind after waking from a dream. Who knows.
IMO
The daycare employee has no idea what the child heard. It's not just that day ... it's the days between the murder and the last day that the child attended daycare. Personally, I'm a little shocked that the child was sent to daycare under the circumstances ... murder in the family.
The objection was something with the constitution ... #6 and #14 ... but it's a fair ruling. I think the defense made the wrong argument ... they should have argued that the statement should only be entered in its entirety as they could then demonstrate that the child was rambling. By excluding the post-nap testimony, the jury has a focused description from the daycare worker ... who may only have documented certain statements and actions ... no cows, barn and fruit rollups in the pre-nap testimony.
Agreed .. she was told that the prognosis was that she would have some functioning at the level of a 2 year old. She identified that disability as memory related. She's not like a 2 year old that tumbles down the stairs and pushes boundaries (terrible twos), she's like a two year old in memory functioning, but otherwise holds a menial job and presents professionally in court.
I heard that testimony and have relistened to it since that day. I just did not hear the same thing you did. She didn't say she believed that about her brain she said she was told that. I suppose one could surmise she believed it but I really think we should stick to what she said. I think there is a lot of interpretation and not so accurate restatements of actual testimony where this particular witness is concerned.
IMO
I was shocked too that they took her to daycare! If my spouse had just been brutally murdered I'd be holding on to my babies so tight, especially if one of them was in the house and a possible eyewitness! No way, no matter what the circumstances were.
Personally, I totally see why the judge ruled against the post nap conversation. It seemed disjointed to me and could or could not have had anything to do with the outside doll play acting. We do not know how much time had lapsed between the two and to suggest that the two are somehow connected is a far stretch IMO without more to go on than what we know right now. Even if we knew more or had witnessed it ourselves, I don't think we could be 100% sure what CY was talking about. Heck she could have just been rambling about several things on her mind after waking from a dream. Who knows.
IMO
Personally, I totally see why the judge ruled against the post nap conversation. It seemed disjointed to me and could or could not have had anything to do with the outside doll play acting. We do not know how much time had lapsed between the two and to suggest that the two are somehow connected is a far stretch IMO without more to go on than what we know right now. Even if we knew more or had witnessed it ourselves, I don't think we could be 100% sure what CY was talking about. Heck she could have just been rambling about several things on her mind after waking from a dream. Who knows.
IMO
Have you followed the testimony from the daycare employee?
We've only been presented with one suspect.
Jason Young live blog: Defense presses key witness, and investigator details findings
Excerpt: “Me and a couple of my friends was out playing ball,” she said. “The ball went across the street. One of my friends pushed me to go get it.”
She saw the truck coming and was hit.
“I don’t know exactly. I was told by my parents that when I got hit my brain was laying out on the street,” she said.
The doctors, she said, “told my mama I’d be like 2 years old when I was 20 years old.”
She said, with a touch of pride in her voice, that that had not turned out to be true. But she did say she was a “slow learner” and told Klinkosum she has received disability through Social Security since she was a child.
“I’ve had memory problems since ’86,” said Calhoun, who is 35. “I’ve been through a lot with myself, my kids and my ex-husband.”
But she insisted her memory was not faulty when it came to the night of Nov. 3, 2006. She identified Young to investigators only a few days later."
http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/feb...oung-trial-resumes-clerk-back-sta-ar-1910969/
She said she saw the interior lights on and the exact description of the van.
I am suggesting she may have seen a vehicle at the next house, closer to Blue Sage....if she saw one at all.
Thank you ... so even though she has a memory disability, that may be like a 2 year old, she insists (with pride) that this is not true. Yet, throughout the testimony, she remembered new information. I think we can assume it's not because she actually remembered better information, but that she was rehabilitated ... until cross examination. The gas attendant gave contradictory testimony with new information being added not only with each interview, but also with each trial.
I think it's probably the latter. When my ex would fly into a rage and start breaking furniture it didn't matter the kids were in the room. He could only consider their presence once his anger was expended. Even if he 'saw' them he didn't care they were there. FWIWRegarding CY, I'm having a hard time with what she may have seen. I don't doubt she perhaps witnessed her mom being brutally murderedbut I do have a hard time believing that if the killer is JY, he would leave her there to watch the whole thing. I can't wrap my head around that.
Does the killer stop, gives the child tylenol, puts her to bed and then goes back to what he was doing? Or is he/she in such a adrenaline rush that he/she doesn't notice the child there?
If the killer is JY would he risk taking CY to daycare knowing she witnessed the whole thing? Did JY know that CY was able to speak in full sentences "Daddy did it"?
IDK
Regarding CY, I'm having a hard time with what she may have seen. I don't doubt she perhaps witnessed her mom being brutally murderedbut I do have a hard time believing that if the killer is JY, he would leave her there to watch the whole thing. I can't wrap my head around that.
Does the killer stop, gives the child tylenol, puts her to bed and then goes back to what he was doing? Or is he/she in such a adrenaline rush that he/she doesn't notice the child there?
If the killer is JY would he risk taking CY to daycare knowing she witnessed the whole thing? Did JY know that CY was able to speak in full sentences "Daddy did it"?
IDK