Trial Delayed until at least January

[borndem]

If they produced the rock and claimed that there were 3 alleles that were consisent with Jason's DNA, then they were hoping that the jury was completely ignorant about DNA analysis. The alleles probably matched half the jury and one of the lawyers too.

IIRC, the PT's crux of that evidence was that JY couldn't be ruled out.

 

[otto]

IIRC, the PT's crux of that evidence was that JY couldn't be ruled out.

Of course he couldn't be ruled out. Investigators made it clear to everyone that Jason was their number one suspect even though he was out of town for a meeting at the time of the murder. Jason knew this before he arrived at home. He had been advised to lawyer up before talking to police and his lawyer advised him not to talk to police for any reason. Investigators shouldn't have been so obvious about their suspicions.

I almost think that investigators and the prosecutor have been getting their bright ideas from forums ... they seemed to believe that all they had to tell the jury was that Jason wouldn't talk to them and that meant he was guilty.

 

[NCEast]

<modsnip>

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... the day that a prosecutor has to rely on forum discussions in order to do his or her job is the day he or she should seek other, more suitable employment.

I agree Otto.
But Becky Holt could have taken some lessons here during the first trial. I will always blame her if he gets off the second time for not pushing harder during her cross of JY. Gosh, she had a once in a lifetime chance and blew it so badly. And the thing is, I had read before that trial that she was a good ADA with a drive and a no holds barred way about her. I sure didn't see any of that.

 

[borndem]

What risk is there for a man to shower in his own bathroom ... he had two to choose from? A stranger might think that it was risky, but not the occupant of the home. Suggestions that someone showered under the garden hose in the middle of the night in November support a stranger murderer better than they support an occupant murderer.

You missed my main point -- certainly there would be no risk to take a shower in your own bathroom where probably you had taken one within the last 24 hours perhaps. The risk was in taking a shower in their bedroom and walking back out through the blood that was in that room. JY wasn't a total idiot: he knew enuff not to risk getting blood on himself by walking thru that room and getting directly into his car. He had to wash off outside -- he did not have to take a shower. Most of his body was covered in clothing during the brutal, bloody murder. Change clothes and shoes outside, then wash hands, face outside -- those were about the only body parts exposed. Simple and quick. Gather the clothes & both pairs of shoes and the gloves in a trash bag, and Vroom, Vroom...

 

[MyBelle]

It's in the testimony.

Wrong. Mr. Hicks did not testify that the camera was unplugged at 11:20.

JMO

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9709817/#/vid9709817

 

[NCEast]

What risk is there for a man to shower in his own bathroom ... he had two to choose from? A stranger might think that it was risky, but not the occupant of the home. Suggestions that someone showered under the garden hose in the middle of the night in November support a stranger murderer better than they support an occupant murderer.

I live in the country and we have a septic tank. So I don't know about how the city sewer systems work. The last water, Mt. Dew, beet juice, etc. that goes down the drain doesn't forcefully flush down a sink or a shower drain. It kinda stays just under the rim of the drain. I think that's the way it works in the city too. It doesn't just quickly flush down into the city's system. Had he showered in either of his bathrooms his cells, DNA, would have been the last that entered the drain, it would have been near the top, of whatever remained in the drain. I've seen enough CSI shows to know that and perhaps he did too. That's why I think he used the hose in the back yard and left it running to wash away everything he washed off his body. That makes much more sense to me than his taking a shower in the house and leaving anything behind to link him to the murder. Or to track anything back outside and into his car with him.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't know ... we're supposed to accept that this 2 year old understood the concept of murder and boldly stated that daddy did it, but at the same time she couldn't take off her socks as soon as they were wet and sticky and subsequently clean her feet in the bathroom?

Both are unbelievable as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe there is any evidence the child was cleaned in the bathroom by herself or anyone else yet she was totally clean when found.

JMO

 

[otto]

I agree Otto.
But Becky Holt could have taken some lessons here during the first trial. I will always blame her if he gets off the second time for not pushing harder during her cross of JY. Gosh, she had a once in a lifetime chance and blew it so badly. And the thing is, I had read before that trial that she was a good ADA with a drive and a no holds barred way about her. I sure didn't see any of that.

Was that assessment of the prosecutor coming from a victim or an accused? They say that a prosecutor is only as good as their last case. I actually see problems with the evidence. The prosecutor can only work with what she has ... she had a weak gas attendant witness, a timeline that didn't work, a suspect that was more than happy to answer questions in the courtroom in front of 12 jurors, an argument that leaned heavily on the fact that the suspect wouldn't answer questions except in a courtroom, a theory that may or may not involve other suspects although no evidence regarding other suspects was ever introduced ... it was a mess, but not entirely the prosecutors fault.

 

[MyBelle]

I live in the country and we have a septic tank. So I don't know about how the city sewer systems work. The last water, Mt. Dew, beet juice, etc. that goes down the drain doesn't forcefully flush down a sink or a shower drain. It kinda stays just under the rim of the drain. I think that's the way it works in the city too. It doesn't just quickly flush down into the city's system. Had he showered in either of his bathrooms his cells, DNA, would have been the last that entered the drain, it would have been near the top, of whatever remained in the drain. I've seen enough CSI shows to know that and perhaps he did too. That's why I think he used the hose in the back yard and left it running to wash away everything he washed off his body. That makes much more sense to me than his taking a shower in the house and leaving anything behind to link him to the murder. Or to track anything back outside and into his car with him.

LE tested the area in the back yard for blood and found none.

 

[otto]

You missed my main point -- certainly there would be no risk to take a shower in your own bathroom where probably you had taken one within the last 24 hours perhaps. The risk was in taking a shower in their bedroom and walking back out through the blood that was in that room. JY wasn't a total idiot: he knew enuff not to risk getting blood on himself by walking thru that room and getting directly into his car. He had to wash off outside -- he did not have to take a shower. Most of his body was covered in clothing during the brutal, bloody murder. Change clothes and shoes outside, then wash hands, face outside -- those were about the only body parts exposed. Simple and quick. Gather the clothes & both pairs of shoes and the gloves in a trash bag, and Vroom, Vroom...

I don't think the blood was at the bedroom door. It was in the corner of the room between the bed and the walkin closet. I see no reason that someone couldn't walk from the bathroom to the bedroom door without stepping in blood.

I'm not buying that the reason the outside hose was trickling water was becaue Jason took a shower in the middle of the night under the garden hose. That really sounds to me like a leap of the imagination to explain the trickling hose with anything that points to Jason.

 

[otto]

Wrong. Mr. Hicks did not testify that the camera was unplugged at 11:20.

JMO

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9709817/#/vid9709817

I just listened to his testimony and he said that he was working in the office doing the paperwork from midnight on. The camera feed was in the room where he was doing his paperwork and it wasn't until 3:30 or 4 that he realized one of the cameras had gone blank.

 

[otto]

Both are unbelievable as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe there is any evidence the child was cleaned in the bathroom by herself or anyone else yet she was totally clean when found.

JMO

Apparently she was in the bed and there was no evidence of blood from her feet, yet her socks were covered in blood. I'm used to young children coming in the house with wet shoes and removing their socks right there and then, or spilling something and immediately removing their wet socks. They don't usually walk to the bathroom with wet socks and then take them off, but they may carry the wet socks to the bathroom or another room.

 

[MyBelle]

I agree Otto.
But Becky Holt could have taken some lessons here during the first trial. I will always blame her if he gets off the second time for not pushing harder during her cross of JY. Gosh, she had a once in a lifetime chance and blew it so badly. And the thing is, I had read before that trial that she was a good ADA with a drive and a no holds barred way about her. I sure didn't see any of that.

Hopefully the lesson she learned is that evidence of guilt is needed. Random rocks and drunken antics at parties aren't going to win it no matter how forcefully she presents it.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Beliefs are not proof...which is perpetually pointed out to the folks who think JY murdered his wife.

CY was cleaned up. She was found that way by her aunt upon arrival. The jury can infer the meaning if the state can put it together in a cohesive way for them. Some intruder didn't clean up little CY. It was a parent...the one who murdered her mother.

 

[MyBelle]

Apparently she was in the bed and there was no evidence of blood from her feet, yet her socks were covered in blood. I'm used to young children coming in the house with wet shoes and removing their socks right there and then, or spilling something and immediately removing their wet socks. They don't usually walk to the bathroom with wet socks and then take them off, but they may carry the wet socks to the bathroom or another room.

Even if CY had pulled off her socks, the blood residue on her feet would have transferred to the carpet as she walked down that hallway to the bathroom and what remained in the tiny crevices of her nails would have transferred to the bed sheets. I can understand LE's conclusion on one of the search warrants that stated the best explanation was that she was removed from the house.

JMO

 

[NCEast]

Was that assessment of the prosecutor coming from a victim or an accused? They say that a prosecutor is only as good as their last case. I actually see problems with the evidence. The prosecutor can only work with what she has ... she had a weak gas attendant witness, a timeline that didn't work, a suspect that was more than happy to answer questions in the courtroom in front of 12 jurors, an argument that leaned heavily on the fact that the suspect wouldn't answer questions except in a courtroom, a theory that may or may not involve other suspects although no evidence regarding other suspects was ever introduced ... it was a mess, but not entirely the prosecutors fault.

Not entirely her fault but she could have done a better job with what she had. Prosecutors never, ever have the opportunity to cross a defendant, it's just so rare, and she acted like she was in her first year of law school. She may have been prepared but it didn't appear that way whatsoever to me. All I can think about is comparing her to ADA JA of the CA trail. He was brilliant and practically turned each and every one of the defense witnesses over to state's witnesses by the time he was finished with them. That's good lawyering. Holt doesn't have half of that fire in her.

 

[otto]

Beliefs are not proof...

CY was cleaned up. She was found that way by her aunt upon arrival. The jury can infer the meaning if the state can put it together in a cohesive way for them.

We don't know that she was cleaned up. We know that she stepped in blood, that her socks were removed, that she talked about using a wash cloth and that her bloody socks were in the bathroom. There's no reason to assume that someone carried her from the bedroom to the bathroom and back. She could just as easily have taken off her socks, wiped her feet dry with her socks or something else like the edge of the bed sheets, gone to the bathroom, used the washcloth she was overheard talking about during the 911 call (that I heard loud and clear) and crawled into bed.

 

[NCEast]

LE tested the area in the back yard for blood and found none.

Hours after the running water hose had diluted it and washed it all away.

 

[otto]

Not entirely her fault but she could have done a better job with what she had. Prosecutors never, ever have the opportunity to cross a defendant, it's just so rare, and she acted like she was in her first year of law school. She may have been prepared but it didn't appear that way whatsoever to me. All I can think about is comparing her to ADA JA of the CA trail. He was brilliant and practically turned each and every one of the defense witnesses over to state's witnesses by the time he was finished with them. That's good lawyering. Holt doesn't have half of that fire in her.

Maybe she knew that she had a weak case and wasn't at her best. No prosecutor is at their best when they see holes in their own case.

 

[MyBelle]

Beliefs are not proof...which is perpetually pointed out to the folks who think JY murdered his wife.

CY was cleaned up. She was found that way by her aunt upon arrival. The jury can infer the meaning if the state can put it together in a cohesive way for them. Some intruder didn't clean up little CY. It was a parent...the one who murdered her mother.

There was no evidence presented that CY required cleaning up. The jury can't leap to that conclusion without some basis in the form of proof.

JMO