Trial Delayed until at least January

[borndem]

Wasn't it JTFax who had gone up and taken pictures of the motel doors and they were much better than what LE had?
I hope you are right about the visuals.....and god forbid the state starts whining about no money in the budget for them. Heck, I am ready to make a donation for whatever they need to put it into a visual of some sort so that everything is easy and clear for the jury to see and absorb.

bbm
Yes, indeed, NCEast, it was our man, JTF!

That picture of the shrubs in front of the HI doors speaks; his pics of the stairwell cameras speak; there were several others that really filled out the story. I would look at them and say, "Oh, okay, now I understand." or I would say, "Darn, why didn't they show a picture like that to the jury?"

Obviously, to get those pictures and to get more of a feel for the case, JTF drove the route that JY did, and he drove it the same number of times....

Thanx, Fax-Man!

 

[borndem]

I'm kind of blown away by the comments from people about sitting on the jury while having a completely tainted opinion of the facts. Are there no better screening methods for selecting juries? NC sometimes brags about having such a high percentage of educated people ... the forums sure don't reflect that. It seems that some people perceive jury duty as a big joke ... just like the case we recently heard about in Florida.

Yes, it's tuff to think about jury selection, Otto, after seeing what we have all seen & discussed. I guess voir dire is like locks on doors -- it keeps honest people honest, but those who want to be included on/excluded from jury duty sometimes are able to "lie" their way in or out; and those who want to get on the other side of the door, do. It tends to make me even more cynical than I was before. Sad commentary, as they say.

 

[otto]

Yes, it's tuff to think about jury selection, Otto, after seeing what we have all seen & discussed. I guess voir dire is like locks on doors -- it keeps honest people honest, but those who want to be included on/excluded from jury duty sometimes are able to "lie" their way in or out; and those who want to get on the other side of the door, do. It tends to make me even more cynical than I was before. Sad commentary, as they say.

It's a very sad reflection of attitudes towards the murder of a vibrant young pregnant mother. People that were required to appear for jury selection refer to the case in a joking, flippant manner. The fact that people that have followed the case closely and have formed opinions about the case have been selected for this particular jury is a huge concern in terms of objectivity. This, so soon after all the irregularities in the forensics lab, leaves me thinking that justice is rare in NC. Reading articles where the investigators have made up their minds about who committed the murder before the evidence has been gathered and analyzed is bizarre. It's one thing to have a hunch, but something completely irregular for investigators to boldly accuse someone of murder without a trial.

 

[Skittles]

"A juror in the Jason Young retrial has been dismissed because of internet postings he made about the case. Defense attorneys told Judge Donald Stephens about the postings Thursday.

The juror admitted to posting on a message board the phrase "we're going to be the worst jurors ever."

Right now, 11 jurors have been seated."

More at:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8518769

 

[Just the Fax]

"A juror in the Jason Young retrial has been dismissed because of internet postings he made about the case. Defense attorneys told Judge Donald Stephens about the postings Thursday.

The juror admitted to posting on a message board the phrase "we're going to be the worst jurors ever."

Right now, 11 jurors have been seated."

More at:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8518769

"The public expects that we pick the best jurors ever, not the worst jurors ever," Judge Donald Stephens said. "In my discretion, you're excused."

 

[Skittles]

"The public expects that we pick the best jurors ever, not the worst jurors ever," Judge Donald Stephens said. "In my discretion, you're excused."

Gotta love the judge!

 

[NCEast]

"The public expects that we pick the best jurors ever, not the worst jurors ever," Judge Donald Stephens said. "In my discretion, you're excused."

Love the judge's remark. What a jab and I'm still laughing. Hope the dude who was excused 'got it'.

 

[otto]

I doubt Jason will take the stand this time, but one question I wish the prosecution had asked is: what exactly is the story about the fax? ... or ... How did one big toe get bruised? I'd like to hear again how he got lost in the mounains and arrived late at his meeting, whether he stopped anywhere for gas.

It was such a lost opportunity for the prosecution that they forgot to ask the right questions ... she seemed so emotionally invested that she lost objectivity and failed to ask the questions that police had presumably waited years to ask. Investigators claimed that Jason could not be cleared because he wouldn't talk to them ... there he was, sworn to tell the truth and there was hardly one relevant question.

I'd like to know how many miles per gallon his car had and see it mapped to the gas station where the attendant claimed to recognize Jason ... visuals with the formula for calculating no. miles given the size of the gas tank and miles per gallon. That would keep it simple for visual thinkers.

 

[otto]

Love the judge's remark. What a jab and I'm still laughing. Hope the dude who was excused 'got it'.

Did they get them all?

 

[otto]

The medicine bottle is an interesting piece of evidence. It is alleged that Jason gave his daughter diluted medicine to knock her out and indeed Jason's mother asked him if it was true. It is true, but he believes that he is qualified to dliute the medicine for use with children. He admitted that both he and Michelle had given diluted medicine to their daughter when she was sick. The 2 year old's DNA was found on the dropper. DNA on the lid of the dropper does not match Jason or any known person. How does that make sense? The 2 year old's DNA is on the dropper and an unknown foreign DNA is on the cap, but the husband did it?

Let's look at the jewelry box - that's the item that defines the crime scene as staged, as nothing else appears to have been stolen (other than jewelry). The DNA on the jewelry box does not match known suspects.

So the theory police have is that the husband did it, he staged stealing jewelry with someone else's fingerprints and he drugged his daughter but someone else's DNA is on the bottle cap. Did the defense ever tie together any connection between the DNA on the cigarette butts, the hair on the picture frame, the medicine bottle and the jewelry box? If none of that DNA matches, it's rather unlikely that a stranger was involved in ther murder. If that DNA matches, it would be obvious that someone else was involved.

 

[otto]

"A Superior Court judge on Thursday dismissed a juror after concerns that he had been posting on an Internet message board. Defense attorneys for Jason Young on Wednesday told Judge Donald Stephens about the postings in which two users wrote that they were among a pool of potential jurors. One of the users was selected for the jury, the other was not."

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10648638/

This is priceless:

"At the time, Rogers told Stephens, he was joking and didn't think anything of the posts and never had any intention to talk about the case.

"I can be impartial," he said"

...

"Stephens cautioned two jurors chosen earlier Thursday about not talking about the case or exposing them to news accounts, blog and social media postings about the case.

These systems may inadvertently be used to expose you to information about the case," he said. "Isolate yourself. People will understand. You must remain separate, detached, unbiased."


How could someone posting on a message board remain unbiased after posting for who knows how long? Is this judge actually thinking that it is enough to tell jurors not to post on that particular website during trial? What about not having closely followed the trial ... it's a given that someone that has closely followed a murder investigation cannot be impartial if they are posting on a website about the case ... does the judge not understand that?

Out of those three selected from the jury pool (which included at least three that were well versed in the case), one is out and two in, even though they have an internet history of remarking opinion about the case. What a crazy situation.

 

[Just the Fax]

...

"Stephens cautioned two jurors chosen earlier Thursday about not talking about the case or exposing them to news accounts, blog and social media postings about the case.

These systems may inadvertently be used to expose you to information about the case," he said. "Isolate yourself. People will understand. You must remain separate, detached, unbiased."




Out of those three selected from the jury pool (which included at least three that were well versed in the case), one is out and two in, even though they have an internet history of remarking opinion about the case. What a crazy situation.

I seriously doubt the other 2 he was talking about posted about this case.
Sounds to me like he cautioned them about inadvertent info about the case because they may use facebook or general chat boards, ect. They must have said they use that form of social media in their everyday lives...nothing wrong with that.

 

[gracielee]

Does anyone else remember, weren't JLY & Michelle involved in a suspicious automobile crash while in the mountains?

 

[NCEast]

Does anyone else remember, weren't JLY & Michelle involved in a suspicious automobile crash while in the mountains?

Yes, they went off a cliff. Neither was seriously hurt although Michelle was pregnant at the time. She didn't lose the baby right then, but lost it several weeks later. Accident was majorly fishy in my opinion.

 

[otto]

Yes, they went off a cliff. Neither was seriously hurt although Michelle was pregnant at the time. She didn't lose the baby right then, but lost it several weeks later. Accident was majorly fishy in my opinion.

The driver failed to properly negotiate a curve on the road, he over-turned to the right, then he overcorrected to the left, crossed the centerline and went down an embankment. The car ended up partially in the river at the bottom of the embankment.

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, they went off a cliff. Neither was seriously hurt although Michelle was pregnant at the time. She didn't lose the baby right then, but lost it several weeks later. Accident was majorly fishy in my opinion.

Doesn't sound like much of a cliff if nobody was seriously hurt. A miscarriage weeks later was unfortunate but also impossible to link to a car incident weeks earlier. Just more innuendo in a very weak case.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

The medicine bottle is an interesting piece of evidence. It is alleged that Jason gave his daughter diluted medicine to knock her out and indeed Jason's mother asked him if it was true. It is true, but he believes that he is qualified to dliute the medicine for use with children. He admitted that both he and Michelle had given diluted medicine to their daughter when she was sick. The 2 year old's DNA was found on the dropper. DNA on the lid of the dropper does not match Jason or any known person. How does that make sense? The 2 year old's DNA is on the dropper and an unknown foreign DNA is on the cap, but the husband did it?

Let's look at the jewelry box - that's the item that defines the crime scene as staged, as nothing else appears to have been stolen (other than jewelry). The DNA on the jewelry box does not match known suspects.

So the theory police have is that the husband did it, he staged stealing jewelry with someone else's fingerprints and he drugged his daughter but someone else's DNA is on the bottle cap. Did the defense ever tie together any connection between the DNA on the cigarette butts, the hair on the picture frame, the medicine bottle and the jewelry box? If none of that DNA matches, it's rather unlikely that a stranger was involved in ther murder. If that DNA matches, it would be obvious that someone else was involved.

iirc, it was a print found on the medicine bottle, not DNA. So it would be impossible to determine whether the owner of the print on the bottle also left the unknown DNA. But I also agree with you on many points. Now that the defense knows what the prosecution witnesses will say, I think they will come out slugging about everything you list.

JMO

 

[otto]

Doesn't sound like much of a cliff if nobody was seriously hurt. A miscarriage weeks later was unfortunate but also impossible to link to a car incident weeks earlier. Just more innuendo in a very weak case.

JMO

It wasn't a cliff, it was an embankment between a river and a road.

 

[MyBelle]

I seriously doubt the other 2 he was talking about posted about this case.
Sounds to me like he cautioned them about inadvertent info about the case because they may use facebook or general chat boards, ect. They must have said they use that form of social media in their everyday lives...nothing wrong with that.

Jurors have always been cautioned not to expose themselves to any media about the case. There is plenty wrong if they ignore the Judge's instruction and go to forums focused on the case. At this point, I think once the trial starts the other jurors will inform the court immediately about any juror trying to discuss anything from outside sources.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

It wasn't a cliff, it was an embankment between a river and a road.

Sounds about right.