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

[ohiogirl]

No case against JY? Let’s see:

MOTIVE:

-JY basically hated MY or at least saw her as a real "ball and chain" who might end in an expensive divorce or continued frustration of his desired lifestyle.
-JY stood to profit from the death of MY: more than a million dollars.
-No one else known had anything to gain from her murder.
-Stated to other woman his regret, and how much it weighed on him, that he was now with MY instead of her.

OPPORTUNITY:

-JY had access to the home, and knew its layout and MY's schedule.
-From the time he exited the hotel at night to his next confirmed location, he had time to travel to Raleigh and back.
-JY seen exiting hotel. He had propped open his room door. He propped open emergency exit door at stairwell. Camera on same door he used is unplugged that evening. Camera is pointed up the following early morning (on his return).
-JY was identified on travel South of the hotel by a gas station attendant during the timeframe the state alleges he’d be returning. Perhaps not a smoking gun, but at least the whiff of gun powder in the air.

EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE:

-Footprints matching JY's relatively rare shoes, and his size.
-CY mentions only her Daddy and Mommy, and no one else, while talking during the 911 call. When asked if she knew what had happened to Mommy, the first word she says is “Daddy.”
-No forced entry.
-CY spared despite witnessing the crime, and in addition apparently cared for shortly after the murder. Dog was sequestered during crime.
-Witness ID's similar vehicle to his at home during the timeframe of murder (other witness may have ID'd a different car as well).
-Murderer apparently cleans self up at the scene (no material evidence downstairs; water hose used) implying being comfortable in the home and willing to spend the time to clean up there rather than where he intended to retreat. Random killer could have cleaned up back at his unknown location, but instead does it hanging out with a child who is a witness?? JY had to return to a hotel that needed to remain sterile – clean up at home.
-Only a few items taken; purse undisturbed, downstairs undisturbed.

ICING ON THE CAKE OF GUILT:

-Outfit JY had on leaving the hotel - the pullover is not in his truck the next day, despite JY's mother saying nothing had been removed at her house besides JY and his blazer.
-The shoes he owned that matched the sole and size of the pattern left at the crime scene are also missing, alleged by JY given away by MY to charity. So a random killer had the same size shoe and same sole pattern? Another unlikely thing you need to believe to let him off.
-Insane call activity the day of the murder.
-Doesn’t contest custody for his daughter, which avoids having to answer for his actions.
-Doesn’t contest wrongful death suit.
-Doesn’t, ever, demonstrate interest in the investigation.
-Quickly starts trying to nail other women.
-No interest in seeing wife decently treated in burial.
-Sequesters CY from F family.
-e-mail to wife includes among the insults the statement “I could kill you.”
-recent web searches dealt with knocking someone out and the value of his home.
-while brutally murdered wife is headed to the grave he tells her mother of how he will have to take a hit on the home.
-prior violence against woman he “loved.”

ARE YOU SERIOUS??

-JY says he propped his room door open at the hotel; and then went back downstairs and outside to smoke. He’s going to leave his luggage in his hotel room with the door unlocked when he could simply take the keycard? That’s crazy. He did it so he could reenter without using the card.
-JY says he needed MF to go by the house to get the print out off the printer before MY saw it. That’s crazy. He had zero regard for his wife and no demonstrated interest in surprising her. His previous night’s phone calls, on top of a couple to MY, apparently involved speaking with his bizarre mistress and telling MF that MY had lied about the fight they had had, and it really wasn’t so bad – he didn’t throw things at her.
-Nasty craigslist activity, using daughter as prop (I don’t have any pictures of just me).

WEAKNESS:

Franklin shoe prints (*cough* blisters on JY’s feet *cough*)
No adult witness to murder

-

this just off the top of my head, i'm sure there's more!

You rock

 

[tarheel8600]

pretty sure he said the Frankin version (more than one) of this shoe style was a Dollar General exclusive.

Gotcha! Thanks!

 

[ohiogirl]

No matter what I think on a personal basis for me when I go into a case I need a prosecution team to be able to connect the dots.

It is not about what I think of the individual. I may think the individual is a saint, moron, or a murderer.

In this case there are some areas that I am having some issues with that I believe the jury may as well.

First the PT has to connect JY from the hotel to the home.

1. Sorry the testimony of Gracie is simply unrealiable.
2. The rock means nothing and although it has been posted over and over here that JY's DNA matched the rock the reality is it did not match him and there are multiple profiles on it.
3. There is a mssing shirt supposedly but when I look at the video from the hotel I see 2 very different shirts being worn.
4. Security camera being fooled around with once again cannot be shown to be JY no matter how hard they tried to tie it to him.
5. DNA at the home. There is no DNA that puts him as the murderer.

Contrary to what has been posted here about a plam print in the middle of blood spatter is simply incorrect. It is above the blood spatter.

It has been posted the bottom of these shoes are RARE when in fact they are not. They are EXCLUSIVE to shoes made by a company called Hush Puppy and are found on at least 3 of the shoes they make. They are a popular shoe which many people purchase.

I am concerned that LE focused so much on one person that they did not adequately investigate other avenues.

Whenever I see this happen my radar goes WAY up.

Yes many cases have been tried on CE but usually there has been one thing that ties it in for me. So far the prosecution has not been able to do that for ME. We still have a ways to go but frankly I think I now have more questions than answers.

They could not tie the shoes to JY as both otto and I have stated due to the wear pattern.

I get that there are probably family members posting here or people very close to this case. I still have to look at the evidence that is presented and so far for me there are still to many holes that I need filled as this is how the jury is going to view it.

So far

 

[heidisams]

The PT never pointed out blisters this trial....moot point.
They decided not to go there.

I didn't follow the first trial at all. I remember when the story first broke, but I didn't follow it closely until this trial. I have to say, when I first started reviewing the case and looked at the evidence regarding the 2 pair of shoes (one of which was smaller than jy's) I wasn't sure. When I saw the blisters on his foot along with the hp evidence, that doubt was removed. To me, the blisters told the other half of the story. I was comfortable then to say both footprints came from jy. Especially because I think there's evidence he changed his clothes, shoes, etc... I think it should come in. For me, it was pretty important. I really wish they would've gone there!!! Durn.

 

[ohiogirl]

Bingo. Why aren't they showing the third doll?

Damn, the nefarious third doll!

 

[Ransom]

Edited, or edited to manipulate the information?

Enhanced.

What IS manipulated is the chart/arrows pointing out what someone else "thinks" about that foot.

 

[ohiogirl]

The only doctor doll that comes in scrubs I can find that is in that approximate size range from 2006 is a Ken doll, doctor doll and it has very long curly blonde hair. There are earlier dolls with brown hair (mostly from the mid 1990s) that have the plastic hair and would not be similar to JY at all. They almost have the appearance of not being caucasian. I am basing my search on what the lady said: Scrubs, doctor, male, doll. Assuming it's somewhere in the 2002-2006 range time-wise.

Anything else I've come across seems to be a little too cartoony or stuffed animal like.

We are arguing about dolls? Really?

 

[ohiogirl]

If there is another mistrial or a NG verdict, as much as everyone will want to blame the jury, I think you still would have to put it on the PT. The way to win a case is highlight specific points (in testimony, opening and closing statements), and continue to drive home those points, over and over again. Drive home the fact that the shoes are somewhat uncommon. Drive home the fact that the camera hasn't been tampered with in over 10 years. Drive home the fact that the outfit he's wearing on the camera hasn't been found.

If these things are not done, then don't blame the jury on the verdict. There is a reason the first trial was a mistrial, 8-4 in favor of not guilty and it wasn't because they were stupid or not paying attention. Drive home the key points, and you get the guilty verdict.

I totally agree with you. The PT comes across badly.
What is up with them? Do they not want to try this case? This is the 2nd go round. They need to amp it up if they are convinced of guilt jmo:seeya:

 

[Grammy Jean]

I just got home from Les Mis, I've seen it six times in my life and this one did not disappoint. I have been reading through all the posts. Anyway while getting gas today I started thinking about JY getting gas (which I believe he did) at Gracie's station. Since he did not expect the pumps to be locked I guess I am certain he planned to pump and then drive off without paying. Is this the thinking most of you have on the topic? I mean what is a little act of theft after you've just committed murder.

 

[ohiogirl]

Not only defense attornies. I see forensic experts with differing opinions. That is the beauty of the court system. The jury has to decide based on facts not speculations and assumptions. I said "I think" he did it. Do I convict him based on what I think? Why have a trial then? Why not throw all these people in prison because we assume they did it?

One other point, jurors are not discussing this case as we are. They have no access to a lot of the information we have so whatever verdict is reached, it will be done during deliberations when all evidence is presented. I would hate to think a juror at this point in time has already "convicted" JY based on what was presented. They still have some time to go and the other side hasn't presented its case yet. That's our judicial system. Like it or not.

Forensic experts always seem to have differing opinions anymore. That is why most of us get so frustrated. The science should be the deciding factor. When there is "science for hire" we don't know what to think. I guess is depends on what the definition of is "is". lol

 

[ohiogirl]

The question is whether a 2.5 year old clearly distinguishes between a male doll and a female doll ... and I'm not convinced that they do. Regarding the bite, I suspect that the child had some experience where she witnessed another child being spanked for biting ... could have been a friend, might be from daycare ... hard to say ... but I think she had some personal experience where biting resulted in spanking. I think she made that leap on her own.

2-3 years
At this age, young children are developing “gender identity.” This means that they begin to label themselves and others as male or female. They can use words to label friends, family, and themselves as a boy or a girl.

3-4 years
Children at this age begin to use “gender typing.” They like putting things in categories, and gender is one way to do that. For example, a three-year-old child may think that trucks are male toys, because boys usually play with trucks.

4-6 years
Children at this age begin to understand and use “gender scripts.” This is another way to put things in categories. Instead of grouping things, they put events or activities in groups related to gender. For example, a five-year-old child may think that a person putting on make-up has to be a female. That child may also think that only males lift weights, so everyone lifting weights must be a male.

6-7 years
Before this age, boys might think that they will grow up to be women. Girls might think they will be daddies when they are older. By age 6 or 7 though, most children understand and believe that a person’s gender is constant. They know it will not change throughout life. Most children this age also know that a man is still a man, even if he dresses like a woman.

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/providerparent/child growth-development/AgesStages.htm

The below link, starting pg 18, also suggests that child must be between 6-10 before they consistently correctly identify representations of gender.

http://infantlab.fiu.edu/Articles/Wild et al JECH 2000.pdf

We can try to analyze it until the cows come home. It is what it is.

 

[White Rain]

Sorry White Rain, I am not attacking the few that claim they did not hear what the vast majority of us heard. That sequence of the recording was the only portion deleted by the court....apparently there was a very serious issue.

At the end of the day, it was not admitted, so the jury will not have the same debate.

Thanks JTF....I am trying to keep up daily, but with a 2 yr old it's impossible.
I know I am missing alot . I want to watch the trial and my kid wants to watch Spongebob.....and on MY tv, not his....so I just give up and let him do it. If I went and turned the trial on in his room and tried to watch it in there it would be the same thing.....so I watch what I can, when I can....
Went back and read a couple of your posts (not many cause am tired and ready to sack out) but anyway it seems you are VERY knowlegable about the case.....I am sure you know way more than I.
So anyway, am just trying not to ruffle feathers here!

 

[ohiogirl]

If the doctor is from the same set, then it's understandable that the grandmother figure was selected to represent another person.

http://www.marveltoys.biz/MTCTestReports.htm

If, if, if, Take it at face value.
Search all you want to, pictures of dolls, etc. She was acting out a scenario, it doesn't matter what examples of dolls anyone comes up with.
No one gave her options. jmo

 

[otto]

Thanks ... it's a poor quality image - difficult to get more information out of it, but I'll give it another shot tomorrow. None of the standard tools seem to add definition to what he is carrying or the shoes.

 

[ohiogirl]

Well MoonFlwr, looks like you didn't want to hear it....not surprised.

BRW, I immediately heard it back in 12/2006 and I was never coached.

I heard, "Daddy" but not did it. how could a 2 year old know that they wanted a "did it".
I heard Daddy twice, not did it. imo.

 

[otto]

If, if, if, Take it at face value.
Search all you want to, pictures of dolls, etc. She was acting out a scenario, it doesn't matter what examples of dolls anyone comes up with.
No one gave her options. jmo

The question was what the doctor figure may have looked like. If the doctor figure was from the Marvel set, then we now know what that figure looked like.

 

[ohiogirl]

In this image, the side of the step stool appears greenish. It is not. In fact, there is blood on the stool, but it's not visible in the image. The image has either been over-exposed in the camera or after the fact ... I think it's after the fact because of the green.

And this figures in how?

 

[ohiogirl]

I don't know if those injuries are really there ... I enhanced red, yellow and green, dodged and burned, used the screen blending mode ... simply enhanced using available tools. The photo on the bottom - of the three I posted together - dodge tool used to further wash out the already over exposed image. The information in the edited images is different than what is available in the original ... in my opinion, I've manipulated the information.

This is too much, imo.

 

[MoonFlwr]

:clap:

I agree with Moonflower and Poppy....
Just the Fax, it doesn't mean we are wrong when we don't necessarily hear what you did......or that any of us should be told "we didn't want to hear it."
We could very will think Jason is guilty and still not have heard what you did, or we (not me though) could think he is innocent based on the evidence.

Well said!

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I just finished watching Jason's testimony at his first trial. He's a slick one, isn't he? I noticed that he uses the "overly wide eyes, with raised eyebrows" facial expression a whole lot at the beginning of his testimony. Very similar to Casey Anthony's wide eyed, raised eyebrow facial gestures.

His lawyer is slick also. Introduced the photo of Jason taken at the child's third birthday party which was after the murder. Asked Jason to describe the shirt he is wearing in the photo. Jason describes it as dark with a racing stripe across the front. Of course, the defense attorney never asks if it is the same one seen in the hotel video surveillance photo from the night of the murder. Prosecutor never even asks about this, which she should have.

Another rather important item the prosecutor missed: Defense lawyer has Jason read from the package insert for the cough medicine. It lists "paradoxical hyperactivity" as a possible side effect. Lawyer uses this phrase to say this would not be something to use for making a child drowsy then would it?

Prosecutor came back with other warnings within the insert that state to take care with machinery, could cause drowsiness.

Prosecutor needs to read about medical definition of "paradoxical" reactions to medications. Should go into a PDR to see how often this reaction was actually found during clinical trials.

I thought the cross examination was quite lackluster and that it focused too much on what a bad boy Jason was with the ladies and not enough on questionable activities such as him admitting to propping open the side doors at the hotel two differnt times. Why not hammer on him about leaving his hotel room door unlocked with his computer in the room? About him claiming the second time he went down and propped the door it was because he had not brought his key card with him? Really? A guy who travels often? And why not use the designated smoking area outisde the hotel?

I just would have liked to have seen questions more relevant to the events of that night rather than hearing about one more woman.