State vs Jason Young 2-17-2012

[NCEast]

What do you mean, acted like he didn't care? He instantly fell to his knees in agonizing grief when his mother told him Michelle was dead. Or so says his mother....

Over-reaction in my opinion.

 

[octobermoon]

BH needs to slow down the witness.

 

[MyBelle]

Over-reaction in my opinion.

Is there some kind of playbook for an acceptable reaction to learning about the death of a spouse?

My mother fainted at the news my dad was injured in a car wreck. Nobody thought she was over-reacting.

JMO

 

[cityslick]

Over-reaction in my opinion.

Is there such a thing when your wife is murdered? This is a general question, not related to JY.

 

[NCEast]

Is there some kind of playbook for an acceptable reaction to learning about the death of a spouse?

My mother fainted at the news my dad was injured in a car wreck. Nobody thought she was over-reacting.

JMO

Absolutely, there is no playbook. I also mentioned that it was my opinion.

 

[~n/t~]

Thanks for the link! I don't get why the pros ever brought the email up. :waitasec:



Wow. He really got deep in there. *eyeroll*

My guess was to show that it was 2 months before Michelle's murder. Showing state of mind. He was still "in love" with another woman even though we know he's had plenty of others.

 

[Madeleine74]

RE: All the explanations of all the things that are suspicious about JLY.

It if were just one thing (cheating OR camera tampering OR clerk ID OR CY cleaned OR lots of valuables left behind OR not talking to police, anyone else OR weird random calls to MF to get printouts OR phone turned off OR size 12 HP prints OR history of violence against SO OR he happened to prop room door/ outside door open w/twig same night hotel staff find it propped open w/rock, etc etc etc) I could see past it and accept that the most simple explanation is the plausible one - simple coincidence. Will all of this, though, the more simple explanation rather than lots of random bad luck that point to him, is that these all happened for a reason - that being that he did it.

Just stating MOO, I know others don't agree, that's ok w/ me.

PJ,

Totally agree! The problem, as I see it, is that for some reason many people look at a case and analyze each circumstantial item in a vacuum. They say to themselves,

- "hey I propped a door at a hotel before, and I didn't kill anyone." or

- "hey I smoked a cigar outside of a hotel one night and I didn't kill anyone." or

- "I didn't lock my hotel room door so if JY didn't either that doesn't prove anything!"

For whatever reason <mod snip> they simply cannot or will not look at the totality of the circumstantial evidence and instead try to explain away each individual item as if that's the only item found and nothing else exists. I don't get it, but I see it happen all the time. In fact, it seems even more common to me now.

If you have a jury that does the same thing, and cannot or will not look at all the evidence, and tries to explain away each individual item apart from everything else, a conviction won't be obtained.

 

[Shelby1]

Can a trial be re-done as many times as the state wants if the jury keeps hanging?

 

[TigerBalm]

Can a trial be re-done as many times as the state wants if the jury keeps hanging?

Yes.. double jeopardy only attaches when the defendant has either been convicted or acquitted.

 

[Lori59]

PJ,

Totally agree! The problem, as I see it, is that for some reason many people look at a case and analyze each circumstantial item in a vacuum. They say to themselves,

- "hey I propped a door at a hotel before, and I didn't kill anyone." or

- "hey I smoked a cigar outside of a hotel one night and I didn't kill anyone." or

- "I didn't lock my hotel room door so if JY didn't either that doesn't prove anything!"

For whatever reason <mod snip> they simply cannot or will not look at the totality of the circumstantial evidence and instead try to explain away each individual item as if that's the only item found and nothing else exists. I don't get it, but I see it happen all the time. In fact, it seems even more common to me now.

If you have a jury that does the same thing, and cannot or will not look at all the evidence, and tries to explain away each individual item apart from everything else, a conviction won't be obtained.

Yep, and exactly why they need to stress..The Totality of the Evidence JMO

 

[MyBelle]

PJ,

Totally agree! The problem, as I see it, is that for some reason many people look at a case and analyze each circumstantial item in a vacuum. They say to themselves,

- "hey I propped a door at a hotel before, and I didn't kill anyone." or

- "hey I smoked a cigar outside of a hotel one night and I didn't kill anyone." or

- "I didn't lock my hotel room door so if JY didn't either that doesn't prove anything!"

For whatever reason <mod snip> they simply cannot or will not look at the totality of the circumstantial evidence and instead try to explain away each individual item as if that's the only item found and nothing else exists. I don't get it, but I see it happen all the time. In fact, it seems even more common to me now.

If you have a jury that does the same thing, and cannot or will not look at all the evidence, and tries to explain away each individual item apart from everything else, a conviction won't be obtained.

None of the three items you mentioned is actually evidence Jason Young had opportunity. There must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Jason Young left the hotel, returned to Raleigh, killed his wife, returned to the hotel.

So far, all that has been proved by the prosecution is that Jason Young checked into the hotel and was seen on security video inside the hotel and was there the next morning to obtain his receipt.


JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Can a trial be re-done as many times as the state wants if the jury keeps hanging?

Sure but I doubt it happens here. I think the Judge will make sure this is the last trial for this case. Plenty of alternates.

JMO

 

[Grammy Jean]

Yep, those prints added to the size 10 shoes and the postal workers sight of a vehicle exiting the drive at 5:30 AM.

The State must concede the possibility he had help during or after the murder.
Of course, that still keeps JLY on the hook for 1st degree murder

I thought the postal worker testified in trial 1 that there was a possibility that what she observed COULD have been the Friday before. She really did not think that was the case but said it was definitely a different News and Observer delivery person that morning. Then during the prosecution rebuttal they brought in the regular News and Observer delivery man and he testified he was working that Friday.

 

[otto]

None of the three items you mentioned is actually evidence Jason Young had opportunity. There must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Jason Young left the hotel, returned to Raleigh, killed his wife, returned to the hotel.

So far, all that has been proved by the prosecution is that Jason Young checked into the hotel and was seen on security video inside the hotel and was there the next morning to obtain his receipt.


JMO

Exactly. There's viewing the evidence as a totality, and then there's viewing evidence that has not been connected to the crime as somehow being related. There's absolutely nothing connecting the medicine to the murder, but it is part of the prosecution's theory ... it's illogical. The prosecution has Jason with and without gloves while committing the murder ... it's illogical.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Did I hear that right? The Franklin shoe impressions were more discernable than the Hush Puppy? Does this mean the Franklins were worn during the murder?

ETA:Naaaah. N'mind. That theory doesn't work.

Not able to listen to or watch testimony today. Was there testimony that would rule out the Franklins being worn while the assault and murder was being committed?

 

[Madeleine74]

Not able to listen to or watch testimony today. Was there testimony that would rule out the Franklins being worn while the assault and murder was being committed?

Nope.

 

[dgfred]

Exactly. There's viewing the evidence as a totality, and then there's viewing evidence that has not been connected to the crime as somehow being related. There's absolutely nothing connecting the medicine to the murder, but it is part of the prosecution's theory ... it's illogical. The prosecution has Jason with and without gloves while committing the murder ... it's illogical.

How can the medicine not be part of the murder if was given to the child to get her to sleep? That makes is 'part' of the murder, right?

Why is having gloves on during the assault, but having them off while doing something else afterwards? That would make it logical, right?

 

[NCEast]

How can the medicine not be part of the murder if was given to the child to get her to sleep? That makes is 'part' of the murder, right?

Why is having gloves on during the assault, but having them off while doing something else afterwards? That would make it logical, right?

Fred, there isn't any proof that the child was given the medication so it's all supposition on the state's part. She was not tested, blood work, etc. to see if there was any medicine in her system.
The gloves are supposition too as there is no proof either way that gloves were worn. However, there is the picture of JY at the HI in the hallway with what appears to be gloves on top of a newspaper he was carrying. That's where and how the gloves play in. So both issues are supposition on behalf of the state until or unless they reveal more evidence confirming both. It's stuff like these issues which make this case so darn difficult.

 

[~n/t~]

Sure but I doubt it happens here. I think the Judge will make sure this is the last trial for this case. Plenty of alternates.

JMO

Is this the same Judge from the first trial?

 

[Grammy Jean]

I would too.
Well, the jury did not see this list.
Klink is pointing the finger at MF, so he purposely left her out

I did not think any DT could be more despicable than the Casey Anthony team throwing George Anthony under the bus. BUT this DT casting doubt on MF trumps that!!!