State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-25 Feb 2012

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kills me that the daughter thinks there is reasonable doubt - NG just because her mom thinks she saw a vehicle in their drive at 5:30AM? Even if true, how would this let JLY off the hook? He could have had a bus load there, but that does not make him any less guilty. I sure hope this jury does not have the same thought process as her daughter.
 
I posted the text above. Looks like she does think he did it, but thinks her Mom's testimony brings in reasonable doubt.

Yes, now that does pretty much go along with what I heard. CB also believes JY did it and is sickened that her testimony helps the DT.
 
Sounds like these people are relishing their fifteen minutes of fame. So unlike Gracie, who two days after the event, through no action on her part, became embroiled in a murder case. That night when she was questioned about her gas sales a couple nights prior, she didn't know anything about the case. Her friend had mentioned something about a 'murder in Raleigh', a hundred miles away, which she 'let go in one ear and out the other.' When those investigators came into her store that night, she had no idea what they were looking for. Could have been somebody 'on the run', a bank robber perhaps, anybody. But she remembered the guy who angrily came into her store, cussed at her, and threw money at her. Look at JLY's photo. Would any of us 'forget' his face? It certainly isn't 'common'. His boney structure face, and we can imagine how it looks *angry* from his fiance's testimony as to how JLY *looks* when he's MAD. I certainly wouldn't forget that face if in the very early morning hours, when I was working a night-shift, it came at me out of the dark and began swearing at me. I'd have been extremely frightened by him. And I'd remember his face a couple days later.

Now her memory may be vague on a few other things, but certainly *less vague* than some following this crime on these boards day & night, not remembering people and evidence testified to and entered into this case. I've seen so many completely wrong and misleading statements made here by people who are intensely following this case. Compared to these, Gracie is top notch on *her* memory. She strongly pointed out JLY now in both trials. She had no hesitation as to who she saw that night. And magically, when she went back over the records, that customer was at the exact spot he would be/should be, in the timeline of events that night. JLY would have been hitting her store at just that time, on his trip back from Raleigh.


ITA... I certainly couldn't forget that ugly mug! He has a very distinct look to him.
 
I would also grill him on waiting until 7:30pm to leave for a biz trip and stopping a mere 2.5 hrs away when this was the first big meeting he had as a new employee.

I would point out his being 35 min late to that meeting.

I would show pics of the breakfast area at HI and ask why he lied about going down for breakfast.

I would bring in the other 2 pairs of shoes he bought at DSW the same day he bought those HP ones and inquire about only discarding the HP ones...the very ones that would implicate him in a murder and which he had on his feet the night before.

I would point out the coincidence of the camera being tampered with twice in the stairway HE used that night, the rock in the door in which his DNA cannot be excluded, no twig found, twig not able to hold open the door based on where he said he propped it.

Basically let him hang himself again and again and again with more lies and more outrageous stories.

What? I never knew he was late for his meeting? Wow. That doesn't mean anything by itself, but that's not typical for a sales call for a potential customer.
 
If Cindy Beaver, after 5+ years, now has a strong opinion as to Jason Young's guilt I would be very hesitant to call her to the stand. The defense may roll the dice and attempt to examine her as a hostile witness, but if a "star witness" for not guilty now clearly recognizes that Young is guilty, that's a helluva risk. If I'm the state, I say bring it on.
 
"Doubt" =/= "Reasonable Doubt"

That escapes so many people.
 
If Cindy Beaver, after 5+ years, now has a strong opinion as to Jason Young's guilt I would be very hesitant to call her to the stand. The defense may roll the dice and attempt to examine her as a hostile witness, but if a "star witness" for not guilty now clearly recognizes that Young is guilty, that's a helluva risk. If I'm the state, I say bring it on.

Actually, from the defense perspective, I think it helps. They get to make the point that this woman is testifying to what she believes to be the truth, despite thinking that it might set a killer free. Gets rid of the bias impeachment or potential impeachment based on looking for "fame."

And her opinion on guilt or innocence is not a proper subject for cross, so they can't directly ask that anyways. The biggest difference would be if she *changed* her previous testimony to say something like 'I thought I saw this, but I realize now I couldn't have, because ..." But they would still get in her earlier words.
 
What? I never knew he was late for his meeting? Wow. That doesn't mean anything by itself, but that's not typical for a sales call for a potential customer.

Add to that: instead of driving all the way to his meeting and staying in a HI nearby where his meeting was to take place...and this was his very first sales call/presentation since joining that company, he only goes halfway. He leaves late and gets to his first important sales call 35 min late. He doesn't call his appointment to tell her he will be late (he claims no good cell phone signal). He claims he took a wrong exit and got lost.

You believe his version of events?
 
Just goes to show, the PT sure better remind the jury it is ok if they want to believe others were there with JLY (during or after).
Make it clear that in no way makes JLY any less guilty of 1st degree murder.
 
If Cindy Beaver, after 5+ years, now has a strong opinion as to Jason Young's guilt I would be very hesitant to call her to the stand. The defense may roll the dice and attempt to examine her as a hostile witness, but if a "star witness" for not guilty now clearly recognizes that Young is guilty, that's a helluva risk. If I'm the state, I say bring it on.

But her testimony is locked and she was very specific about what she saw.
Not sure how much she can change that 8 months later. I assume she thought JLY was guilty before the first trial?
 
Yep. The DT can place a clown car filled with tiny little clowns coming out and running around the scene, all wearing size 10 Franklins, but none of it removes the size 12 HP Orbital bloody shoe prints, JY's hand/finger print 16 inches from the floor near his closet door, his daughter witnessing the murder (mommy getting a spanking) and being able to articulate her Daddy was there. And none of it removes the series of weird happenings at the HI, the missing shoes, pullover, pants that can be placed on JY the night his wife is murdered, and the scores of other evidentiary items.

b5hbo5.png
 
Actually, from the defense perspective, I think it helps. They get to make the point that this woman is testifying to what she believes to be the truth, despite thinking that it might set a killer free. Gets rid of the bias impeachment or potential impeachment based on looking for "fame."

And her opinion on guilt or innocence is not a proper subject for cross, so they can't directly ask that anyways. The biggest difference would be if she *changed* her previous testimony to say something like 'I thought I saw this, but I realize now I couldn't have, because ..." But they would still get in her earlier words.

AGAIN REMEMBER I posted this earlier. In trial 1 CB says on cross the only way she could be positive if what she saw happened on Nov. 3rd would be to find out if it was a substitute News & Observer delivery man because she remembers it was not the regular N&O man that morning. In the states rebuttal they called Travis Branch the N& O man for the past 15 years, his work records show he worked that day. To me that means what CB saw was not on Friday Nov. 3rd.
 
AGAIN REMEMBER I posted this earlier. In trial 1 CB says on cross the only way she could be positive if what she saw happened on Nov. 3rd would be to find out if it was a substitute News & Observer delivery man because she remembers it was not the regular N&O man that morning. In the states rebuttal they called Travis Branch the N& O man for the past 15 years, his work records show he worked that day. To me that means what CB saw was not on Friday Nov. 3rd.
In addition to the wrong day, I also think it was the next house up, closer to Blue Sage (where she said she saw the N&O)

So who, besides TB, worked any day before?
Seems that would be easy to find out and show.

Capture-36.jpg
 
Dr Godwin is Dr Godwin's biggest fan.
It's Saturday morning.....Read his webpage if you want to watch a cartoon.:talker:

http://www.investigativepsych.com/jasonyoungcase.html

This guy reminds me of the cadaver dog-handler from Michigan, who planted evidence, even bones, at places of interest... She had a webpage similar to this one.. She and her dog, Eagle, could go in and find stuff even after others had cleared that area. She had a whole list of searches where nothing was found previously, but she went in and got a hit...
 
I honestly don't know. Without seeing their discovery and knowing who they have available, I think they would need some sort of expert to counter the hushpuppy testimony, if that's possible. I can see calling someone close to the financial issues to discuss that from the defense POV, definitely not Alice Stubbs. I would put more character witnesses on the stand, if he can find them. If necessary or possible, I would put every gas station attendant on the stand who was interviewed by LEO after this, and have them testify they didn't see JY. Someone to strengthen the credibility of Cindy Beaver's testimony would be great.

But, I think if they had these things, they would have presented them in the first trial.

And I think they'll actually put JY up again. I honestly don't think he has anything to lose at this point. But that alone could last two days this time around.

I read a few pages back where someone disputed the HP testimony because the guy from HP said it wasn't a "match." That scares the heck out of me. Because that person obviously did not listen to the testimony, they are hanging a conclusion on a buzz word.

For clarity, the witness said it was not possible to *match* because by definition, you would need the original shoe to *match* it to the prototype. Since the shoe is *missing* it cannot be compared to the prototype, so the best they can say, using their standards, is that it is "consistent with."

Goodness, if someone can't *get* that, what else might they not *get*? I hope the jury is better able to assimilate information.

I think jury selection standards need to be revised, and I am serious. Instead of asking whether one has heard of a case (if one hadn't heard of this case, one would be very uninformed, that is, oblivious to their community), they ought to test for aptitude and ability to *reason, that is, make reasonable conclusions*. And they should have to pass a test for "it's boring but the juror can stay awake." Because that juror(s?) who are nodding off needs to be gone.

smh
 
In addition to the wrong day, I also think it was the next house up, closer to Blue Sage (where she said she saw the N&O)

So who, besides TB, worked any day before?
Seems that would be easy to find out and show.

Capture-36.jpg

I agree. I've looked at that overhead shot many a time. It's harder to judge distance from overhead like that, because you aren't seeing the trees and shrubs obstructing ones vision. But remember, the Young lot was approx. 2 acres, wasn't it? It can be assumed that the other lots in their nighborhood were comperable. Sitting in the dark, early morning hours, it should have been hard for CB to see all the things she claimed, in such a short amount of time, with the street obstructions, with such detail. Sparkly ring on drivers hand, bushy-haired stranger, etc.
 
In yesterday's thread it was posted that Shelly Schaad said that last night she was with Michelle that "she felt someone was watching them".

I watched the day 3, part 3 video of her testimony (http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m.../#/vid10704274) - at around the 17:30 mark the questions start about when/how she left Michelle's house.


Q: And did Michelle walk you out to your car?

A: Yes, because I felt so uneasy that night I said 'Michelle, do you mind just walking me out?' and she did. She walked me, we left through the front door, and she walked me to my car and I said goodbye and I left.




Did Shelly talk about 'feeling they were being watched' at some other point?
 
I read a few pages back where someone disputed the HP testimony because the guy from HP said it wasn't a "match." That scares the heck out of me. Because that person obviously did not listen to the testimony, they are hanging a conclusion on a buzz word.

For clarity, the witness said it was not possible to *match* because by definition, you would need the original shoe to *match* it to the prototype. Since the shoe is *missing* it cannot be compared to the prototype, so the best they can say, using their standards, is that it is "consistent with."

Goodness, if someone can't *get* that, what else might they not *get*? I hope the jury is better able to assimilate information.

I think jury selection standards need to be revised, and I am serious. Instead of asking whether one has heard of a case (if one hadn't heard of this case, one would be very uninformed, that is, oblivious to their community), they ought to test for aptitude and ability to *reason, that is, make reasonable conclusions*. And they should have to pass a test for "it's boring but the juror can stay awake." Because that juror(s?) who are nodding off needs to be gone.

smh

A great example of what I've been referring to here as 'mis-statement of the facts, evidence, testimony given at trial, etc. Done over and over on these boards during this case. And when someone points it out to the poster, the fact is simply ignored by said poster/s, and often times later repeated again as the same misstatement of the facts. :maddening:
 
I agree. I've looked at that overhead shot many a time. It's harder to judge distance from overhead like that, because you aren't seeing the trees and shrubs obstructing ones vision. But remember, the Young lot was approx. 2 acres, wasn't it? It can be assumed that the other lots in their nighborhood were comperable. Sitting in the dark, early morning hours, it should have been hard for CB to see all the things she claimed, in such a short amount of time, with the street obstructions, with such detail. Sparkly ring on drivers hand, bushy-haired stranger, etc.

Here is the street view shot....would depict the angle.
She claimed the vehicle was at the end of the drive, front facing the road.

Capture-47.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
1,738
Total visitors
1,887

Forum statistics

Threads
602,024
Messages
18,133,392
Members
231,208
Latest member
disturbedprincess6
Back
Top