State vs Jason Young 2-17-2012

[Bottle Cap]

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.

I don't think he was "in love" with this woman. Not based on how he treated her, certainly. This email is typical narcissist twaddle. Narcissists (at least the pathological ones) very frequently dream of and desire a perfect love that transcends normal pedestrian relationships such as what they may have with their spouse. It's a billboard-on-the-side-of-the-road hallmark actually, of pathological narcissism.

This sort of thinking also can make a person a bit stalkey (which is what this email sounds like to me.) Sometimes a narcissist will decide a person is to be the recipient of his or her non-ordinary, transcendental, never-dying feelings, and that person wants nothing to do with them or their creepy feelings. IMHO, Ms. C is lucky she wasn't the one who got whacked.

 

[otto]

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?

What evidence is there that the child was drugged, that medicine was used to put her to sleep, that the medicine was used on that night, or that Jason was the last person to handle the medicine?

Prosecution's theory is that Jason touched the wall while assaulting his wife and we've seen ample testimony that he touched the wall around the closet - based on bare hand evidence. We know that Michelle tried to remove the murderer's hands from her neck and left scratches on her neck and her own DNA under her nails. If the murderer was not wearing gloves, she should have scratched the murderer's hands. That didn't happen. Is the prosecutions theory that he wore gloves off and on during the murder?

 

[cody100]

I do not think there is a right or wrong way to view evidence, contrary to popular belief expressed here. Everybody is entitled to explain various pieces of evidence as they choose to do, and it is not ignorance, stubborness, or lack of looking at the totality of the evidence. MOO

There is absolutely no evidence to conclusively say that JY indeed was the individual you used the rock to prop the door open. Had he been the only other guest in the hotel, yes, it would be much more obvious that it was JY. The same logic applies to the camera. There is no evidence that his door was ajar when his paper and bill were delivered that morning.

If you believe he did the crime, then you would no doubt view these facts differently. If you think he might have killed his wife but you aren't sure, then you probably are frustrated that there is a lack of concrete evidence at the HI. And, finally, if you do not think he is guilty, you will quickly dispel any of these facts as being relevant. MOO

Please allow differences of opinion to exist without finding fault with the individuals.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Nope.

Why thank you very much! *curtsy*

 

[NCEast]

Is this the same Judge from the first trial?

Yes, Judge Stephens. Voted recently the best in the area.

 

[dgfred]

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.

Yes, but there is the medicine dropper and the spilt medicine on the counter... with music playing and the rocker too. It sure doesn't make the supposition = illogical by any means IMO.

Same with the gloves. If there are prints of his there it is explainable by him living there, and if those gloves were worn it doesn't = illogical either to bring that up IMO since they were seen on video.

 

[Grammy Jean]

Is this the same Judge from the first trial?

Yep same judge from trial 1 and same judge in the civil wrongful death case where he declared JY as the slayer. Thanking JTF for that knowledge.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

BBM. Haven't the prosecution's own witnesses connected the medicine to the murder by pointing out the unknown print? iirc, the cops' theory was that the Tylenol was given to CY with the mistaken belief it would make her sleepy. We know from her actions that CY was not asleep the many hours she was supposedly left alone.

I think this time around, CY will testify.

JMO

 

[gracielee]

I'm new here and apologize if any of this is out of line. Some of my thoughts on this case after trying desperately to get caught up..

I'm analyzing this case from the perspective of a husband, a father of 1 daughter with another daughter 2 months away. I work in sales and travel frequently. I have never had an affair or cheated on my wife, but have business associates who behave similar to JY (They are married and pursue women ).

Most of the "guilty" theories here and elsewhere seem to have been created under the presumption of guilt. I've tried to presume JY was innocent before looking at evidence. I also ask myself "what would I do?"

1) Re: Talking to police: JY was on his way home to Raleigh after murder when it became apparent investigators were focusing their questions on him. His friends told him to lawyer up and not talk. He failed to help police find killer. Never assisted with investigation. My take: Having LE in my family, I have always been told that suspects should NEVER talk to police - even during a traffic stop. The reason is that it CAN NEVER help. Anything you say can be used as evidence against you. Anything you say CAN NOT be used to help you in court. Once you agree to talk, police could quite literally lie about what you said and it would be your word against theirs. As hard as this would be, I would have done exactly as JY. However, I would likely have been more open with friends and my murdered wife's family.

I'm only addressing this section, curiosity only. If you were out of town on business, and your pregnant wife was found dead in the home, brutally murdered, would you never help the police by answering simple questions as to 'was it normal practice for your wife to be sure to lock all the doors at night?' 'Was it normal practice for your wife to perhaps take the trash outside after dark?" "Is there anything here in your home that you see out of place/missing?" Early on, when the basic theory of the crime is trying to be determined, I mean. Like 'no forced entry', so 'could someone have hidden in the bushes and attacked your wife as she took out the trash and gained entry that way?" 'Or does your wife NEVER go outside alone after dark to do those things when you are out of town?'

Since you were hours away, and you knew you were innocent, would you not want to help find out who the heck beat your wife's face/head to a pulp? Like wouldn't you say 'you know, there are some trailers behind our house, and I've always been a bit concerned about that.' Or perhaps, 'you know, I was outside mowing the lawn Thursday afternoon, and I saw some 'unknown' scummy looking characters walking/driving through our neighborhood.....'

As an aside, we live on a road somewhat similar to the Youngs, although far more rural. About a dozen homes along the dead end road we live on, but all on extremely large lots, with woods between some, and thick woods where the road dead-ends. A couple months ago we discovered that some neighbors had their cars 'entered' over-night. We always locked our cars, so nothing was taken from us. Once one neighbor said 'hey, somebody took my loose change and a couple other things from my car over-night', the word got around to those of us who live on this road. Pretty soon a couple neighbors began to recall some 'not usual to the road' teen guys they'd seen walking down our road the night before the thefts. Various neighbors who'd either been outside having a smoke, or going out to their car for something, etc. a description of the *guys* began to form. And the fact that being extremely rural, on a dead end road, we don't get a lot of 'strangers' out walking, day or night.

What I'm trying to ask is, wouldn't you help at all in attempting to figure out WTF killed your wife??? I just don't get that? I've followed crime my entire life, even told hubby, 'ask for a lawyer', but if I knew I wasn't guilty, and somebody brutally murdered my husband, in our home, while I was out, I'd be banging on everybody's house up and down our road to see what my neighbors saw while I was gone. Much like the broken into cars.

 

[Bottle Cap]

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

Reasonable doubt. Not no doubt at all. Why do people use "reasonable doubt" in place of "no doubt"?

Reasonable doubt is subjective. Jurors can decide for themselves whether all that camera-tampering and door-propping is enough.

 

[frankdrack]

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?

I think that the potential problem with issues like the medicine is that to some observers it shows that the State is stretching to get evidence to fit their theory of the case.

There is no time or person associate with when the medicine was administered but it fits the States theory that JY gave it to CY to put her to sleep. It could be that Michelle sometimes gave it to CY as part of a bedtime routine. We do not know as both are reasonable conclusions.

 

[dgfred]

What evidence is there that the child was drugged, that medicine was used to put her to sleep, that the medicine was used on that night, or that Jason was the last person to handle the medicine?

Prosecution's theory is that Jason touched the wall while assaulting his wife and we've seen ample testimony that he touched the wall around the closet - based on bare hand evidence. We know that Michelle tried to remove the murderer's hands from her neck and left scratches on her neck and her own DNA under her nails. If the murderer was not wearing gloves, she should have scratched the murderer's hands. That didn't happen. Is the prosecutions theory that he wore gloves off and on during the murder?

Although not for certain the adult medicine/dropper/spill all show the medicine was likely given to her by either Michelle or the attacker.

I don't think the attacker being scratched just because her dna was under her own nails is a given. Like I said before gloves could have been worn during the assault, or the prints could have been from long before. Is it an absolute that he touched the wall with an ungloved hand DURING the assault?
Could it not have been an old print of his?

 

[NCEast]

Yes, but there is the medicine dropper and the spilt medicine on the counter... with music playing and the rocker too. It sure doesn't make the supposition = illogical by any means IMO.

Same with the gloves. If there are prints of his there it is explainable by him living there, and if those gloves were worn it doesn't = illogical either to bring that up IMO since they were seen on video.

I agree with you but there needs to be absolute proof. Had LE sent CY for testing immediately upon discovering her and the medicine, there may have been medical proof that she had been drugged. They didn't so there is no factual proof.....only supposition on the part of the state.

 

[Madeleine74]

I do not think there is a right or wrong way to view evidence, contrary to popular belief expressed here. Everybody is entitled to explain various pieces of evidence as they choose to do, and it is not ignorance, stubborness, or lack of looking at the totality of the evidence. MOO

There is absolutely no evidence to conclusively say that JY indeed was the individual you used the rock to prop the door open. Had he been the only other guest in the hotel, yes, it would be much more obvious that it was JY. The same logic applies to the camera. There is no evidence that his door was ajar when his paper and bill were delivered that morning.

If you believe he did the crime, then you would no doubt view these facts differently. If you think he might have killed his wife but you aren't sure, then you probably are frustrated that there is a lack of concrete evidence at the HI. And, finally, if you do not think he is guilty, you will quickly dispel any of these facts as being relevant. MOO

Please allow differences of opinion to exist without finding fault with the individuals.

I disagree. The jury will be instructed on the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. They will be told to consider evidence in totality. If there is something that doesn't fit or testimony that isn't credible they are free to disregard it. But nowhere is a jury instructed to think about each item in isolation and then try to think of ways that could have happened in their own lives.

I don't really care how random people analyze cases. I am making an observation on what I've seen and I am entitled to my observation and opinion.

I only care that a jury follows the judges instructions.

 

[frankdrack]

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!!!

Isn't that their job?

 

[gracielee]

I think she said size 8 woman.

I wear an eight womens shoe. All I said was 'years ago, when I bought a pair of men's boots for myself, I wore smaller than an eight in a men's size. I recall the salesman telling me, back then anyway, that usually men's shoes ran bigger than ladies shoes, so just cuz I wore an eight in ladies, didin't necessarily mean I'd wear an eight in men's.

Hubby had no trouble sticking his size 12's, like jason young, sometimes 12's are too tight on hubby, so he too might have a couple 13's in his closet, but hubby had no trouble sticking his feet into my eight, athletic type Ryka shoe, but for his heels sticking out in the back. Not *down*, just out.

 

[dgfred]

I agree with you but there needs to be absolute proof. Had LE sent CY for testing immediately upon discovering her and the medicine, there may have been medical proof that she had been drugged. They didn't so there is no factual proof.....only supposition on the part of the state.

Absolute truth is hard to get in a circumstancial case... I like to view the 'big puzzle' with the pile of circumstancial evidence that just happens to point to JY on the very night his wife is slaughtered.

 

[Cortne]

I think Michelle would have been 35 today??

I have followed both trials. If and when I decide to commit murder I will try to remember to recall Jasons actions. Just destroy evidence w each step you make along the way and keep my mouth shut. I am fearful this you know what will walk. AJMO This man would have given Scott Peterson a run for his money.

 

[~n/t~]

I agree with you but there needs to be absolute proof. Had LE sent CY for testing immediately upon discovering her and the medicine, there may have been medical proof that she had been drugged. They didn't so there is no factual proof.....only supposition on the part of the state.

I'm shocked they didn't have this poor baby checked by a doctor.

 

[Lori59]

I may be wrong, but I think it is an actual instruction to the jurors that they are to look at the totality of the evidence