Trial Delayed until at least January

[tarheel8600]

I didn't believe the gas purchase witness.

I believe her; however, if the eyewitness testimony of the convenience store clerk was the only evidence that they had against JY, I wouldn't support a conviction. When looking at the CE and the events that occurred at the HI the night before, it leads me to believe that she did have an encounter with JY around 5:30 that Friday morning. It fits the timeline perfectly. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[otto]

I believe her; however, if the eyewitness testimony of the convenience store clerk was the only evidence that they had against JY, I wouldn't support a conviction. When looking at the CE and the events that occurred at the HI the night before, it leads me to believe that she did have an encounter with JY around 5:30 that Friday morning. It fits the timeline perfectly. Coincidence? I don't think so.

She was far too confused about Jason's height for me too accept her testimony. Didn't she say that she and he are about the same height, but in reality he's a foot taller? Also, didn't she say that regulars were at the gasbar at the same time that Jason was there, but the prosecution was unable to find any of the regulars? I found the gas timeline to be problematic.

 

[otto]

I believe her; however, if the eyewitness testimony of the convenience store clerk was the only evidence that they had against JY, I wouldn't support a conviction. When looking at the CE and the events that occurred at the HI the night before, it leads me to believe that she did have an encounter with JY around 5:30 that Friday morning. It fits the timeline perfectly. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I'm of the opinion that the testimony from the gasbar clerk fits perfectly only if we make a number of assumptions about other things that may have happened. If we make those assumptions, the gasbar clerk's testimony verifies those assumptions.

The gasbar clerks testimony leads me to believe that investigators interviewed many gasbar attendants between the murder scene and the hotel. They showed the clerks a picture of Jason and asked the clerks if they recognized him. In all of their interviews, they found one woman that claimed she saw Jason, but she was completely wrong in describing him. I think there's a big problem with the distance travelled and the gas required.

 

[otto]

I do believe the jury will be reminded by the defense that the medical examiner failed to perform a rape kit examination even though it was requested by LE. It really is inexcusable and a disservice to the victim.

JMO

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=triangle&id=5272181

"Eyewitness News has learned that the City-County Bureau of Identification asked for a rape kit during Young's autopsy but never got one."

I agree ... just one more of the many mistakes.

 

[otto]

I think the jurors expected more to be proved than just a possibility he left the hotel. It was possible for any guest to leave the hotel at any given time. I think the majority expected proof of his leaving or returning hours later. It was a great distance, required a lot of time and gas. Security video is just as reliable as an eye witness yet none was shown.

As for the toddler's chatter, it wasn't even hinted at by any of the LE testifying so I guess they didn't hear it or believe she saw anything. I doubt they would have allowed her anywhere near her father if they thought she witnessed him killing her mother.

I don't share your opinion things were proved and nobody else had a motive. I don't see Jason had a motive. He was unfaithful but Michelle hadn't filed for divorce. Eight jurors evidently felt whatever was presented wasn't enough. There have been several horrific murders of women in that area by people unrelated to them in any way.

A judge can enter a directed verdict on behalf of the jury if he decides the burden of proof isn't met.

JMO

I agree ... I don't hear any of the "daddy did it" that has been discussed since the 911 call was released. Furthermore, even if a 2 year old said "daddy did it", it's quite possible that the 2 year old was making sure she didn't get in trouble for the mess and simply deflected ... daddy did it ... it could refer to absolultely anything from spilled glass to something equally unrelated to a murder. Two years cannot be witnesses to crimes for obvious reasons.

We have footage of Jason walking down the hall towards the stairwell around midnight. Is there any footage of him returning to the hotel at the time that would correspond with him committing the murder?

 

[otto]

Compromised how? The Judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys and jurors were different. The only thing I saw the two trials had in common was courtroom.

I think what compromised the trial was the fact that the prosecutor presented adultery, partying, and his remaining totally silent as though it is evidence of murder. The majority of the jury refused to accept it and I think the next will share a similar view.

I thought that it was clearly a case of tunnel vision. It appeared that police immediately suspected Jason and that they then proceeded to wrap a case around him. When they encountered problems, like stray cigarette butts and two sets of different shoe prints, they explained it by saying that Jason owned shoes similar to the prints in the previous 2+ years and that he must have worn two different sizes of shoes during the murder ... one set of shoes two sizes too small. Jason may well have murdered his wife, but the prosecutions arguments in the first trial were pathetic.

 

[otto]

Cougermom, how is the justice system in Florida?
Last trial I saw down there was a sham.

Would you mind quoting the post from "cougarmom".
TIA

 

[otto]

They did present real evidence. Along with motive, means & opportunity. Sneaking out of his hotel room, leaving the doors ajar, tilting the cameras so as to not appear on video, drugging the toddler, and on & on. He's a wife killer.

There's a problem with the motive. It was suggested that the insurance policy was the motive, yet Jason made no effort whatsoever to collect. There's also a problem with opportunity, since the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate how Jason got from A to B without the gasbar witness (who described Jason as being about 5 feet tall). Regarding means, everyone had the means.

He didn't seem to sneak out of the hotel room. He left his room shortly before midnight, went to the front desk and was then seen walking down the hall via video surveillance. There is no evidence that he tilted the camera, only that it was tilted at some point during the night.

There is no evidence that a toddler was drugged. She was never tested for having any kind of drugs in her system.

As for whether Jason is a wife killer, at this point, 8/12 jurors don't agree and no verdict was given.

 

[otto]

IMO, you are attempting do take each piece of evidence in the singular. Beyond a *reasonable* doubt is the total sum of ALL the evidence. Not each single piece of evidence on it's own. It's the sum total of all the evidence. There is evidence that the clothes JY was last seen in were never found. There is evidence that his hotel room door was left ajar. There is evidence that hotel cameras were tilted up. There is evidence that an exterior door was left held open. And there is no evidence that JY ever actually slept in his hotel room. There is evidence that his fingerprint was found in Michelle's blood, and there is evidence that the child was drugged. IMO the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence points towards an extremely reliable circumstantial case of murder. Seldom are murders captured on video. Almost all murder trials rely on a preponderance of the total evidence gathered. Murder is not usually a spectator sport.

Fair enough ... but how does video surveillance of Jason walking down the hall and a tilted camera imply that he murdered his wife? Police looked in a shed for the clothes Jason wore that night months or was it years) after the murder. Did they really expect to find them? There has been a suggestion that Jason propped his door open to explain the keycard use, but why didn't the door swing open when the newspaper was placed on the door knob? I don't recall any evidence of Jason's fingerprint being found in blood at the murder scene. Was that presented during trial? What evidence is there that the child was drugged? Jason explained that he diluted adult medicine for his daughter ... a practice he said he was qualified to do because of his employment experience.

I'm not seeing any evidence that can be considered as a totality ... just a bunch of explanations for facts that don't add up with the prosecutions hunch.

 

[gracielee]

I am not understanding your point.They do have him on camera leaving the hotel by way of the back entrance at midnight. On the stand JY said he was going to his car to smoke a cigar. The next morning someone had titled the camera upwards.

Yes, Grammy. And I believed the convenience store clerk as well. She didn't have any dog in this fight. Nothing to gain. She was sought out, didn't volunteer to be a witness. She remembered JLY because of his wrath towards her.

 

[Just the Fax]

There's a problem with the motive. It was suggested that the insurance policy was the motive, yet Jason made no effort whatsoever to collect. There's also a problem with opportunity, since the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate how Jason got from A to B without the gasbar witness (who described Jason as being about 5 feet tall). Regarding means, everyone had the means.

He didn't seem to sneak out of the hotel room. He left his room shortly before midnight, went to the front desk and was then seen walking down the hall via video surveillance. There is no evidence that he tilted the camera, only that it was tilted at some point during the night.

There is no evidence that a toddler was drugged. She was never tested for having any kind of drugs in her system.

As for whether Jason is a wife killer, at this point, 8/12 jurors don't agree and no verdict was given.

Boy, you sure do change opinions on a dime.:waitasec:

He didn't try to collect the insurance because he would be deposed.
Same reason he gave his daughter away and turned allowed a court to declare him the slayer and award $15.5MM

As for the jury, imo 6-8 were not very bright.

 

[Just the Fax]

Would you mind quoting the post from "cougarmom".
TIA

If you don't understand my post, just scroll by.
Thanks

 

[Just the Fax]

I thought that it was clearly a case of tunnel vision. It appeared that police immediately suspected Jason and that they then proceeded to wrap a case around him. When they encountered problems, like stray cigarette butts and two sets of different shoe prints, they explained it by saying that Jason owned shoes similar to the prints in the previous 2+ years and that he must have worn two different sizes of shoes during the murder ... one set of shoes two sizes too small. Jason may well have murdered his wife, but the prosecutions arguments in the first trial were pathetic.

Did you watch the trial?
There was zero evidence presented there were cig butts anywhere.
LE surely did not find them.
That information came from the defense, yet they offered no proof they even existed.

 

[Just the Fax]

I agree ... I don't hear any of the "daddy did it" that has been discussed since the 911 call was released. Furthermore, even if a 2 year old said "daddy did it", it's quite possible that the 2 year old was making sure she didn't get in trouble for the mess and simply deflected ... daddy did it ... it could refer to absolultely anything from spilled glass to something equally unrelated to a murder. Two years cannot be witnesses to crimes for obvious reasons.

We have footage of Jason walking down the hall towards the stairwell around midnight. Is there any footage of him returning to the hotel at the time that would correspond with him committing the murder?

I thought you watched and followed the trial?
You sure posted during that time.

He was not caught coming back in because he pushed the camera to the ceiling at 6:25AM.

As for 'daddy did it"...I was among most that heard it clear as day.
Perhaps you should listen again?

 

[Just the Fax]

She was far too confused about Jason's height for me too accept her testimony. Didn't she say that she and he are about the same height, but in reality he's a foot taller? Also, didn't she say that regulars were at the gasbar at the same time that Jason was there, but the prosecution was unable to find any of the regulars? I found the gas timeline to be problematic.

What she said a couple of months after the murder means much more (the state can easily correct that next time)

All they need to do is refresh her memory back to 2007 when she told Spivey...:"He was tall with blondish hair"
Then they need to clarify she meant "not much hair" as 'short cut hair'.

Timeline problematic?
To me everything about the timeline lines up perfectly for JLY to be the killer.
He was at the cstore 5:30AM and pushed the camera at the hotel up an hour later.

 

[gracielee]

What she said a couple of months after the murder means much more (the state can easily correct that next time)

All they need to do is refresh her memory back to 2007 when she told Spivey...:"He was tall with blondish hair"
Then they need to clarify she meant "not much hair" as 'short cut hair'.

Timeline problematic?
To me everything about the timeline lines up perfectly for JLY to be the killer.
He was at the cstore 5:30AM and pushed the camera at the hotel up an hour later.

IMO, the prosecution didn't do a very good job of presenting it's case. It didn't tie up loose ends. It was lazy and sloppy in it's presentation. They have a very good case of circumstantial evidence with some direct evidence thrown in. But all in all, it's a very strong case between timeline, lots of written evidence in the form of emails as to JLY's *attitude* towards his wife. Along with the medicine dropper left in the toddlers bedroom, the prior purchase of shoes that matched the prints in the bedroom, in blood, etc. As for the child's voice on the 911 call, it is plainly clear in the original 911 tape. Not the tape that's being played on the TV shows now, but the *original* 911 tape, without the redactions. It should have been a slam dunk IMO.

 

[borndem]

Boy, you sure do change opinions on a dime.:waitasec:

He didn't try to collect the insurance because he would be deposed.
Same reason he gave his daughter away and turned allowed a court to declare him the slayer and award $15.5MM

As for the jury, imo 6-8 were not very bright.

bbm

Or there could have been a real take-charge control-freak foreperson who steered the "I'm not sure's" in a particular direction. Or both.

 

[MyBelle]

I am not understanding your point.They do have him on camera leaving the hotel by way of the back entrance at midnight. On the stand JY said he was going to his car to smoke a cigar. The next morning someone had titled the camera upwards.

No security video of him leaving the hotel was ever admitted as evidence at the first trial. The camera you are referring to that was tilted upward was in a hotel stairwell near a fire door. That fire door was secure prior to 5 AM and entry from outside after that point was impossible. It's all in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Did you watch the trial?
There was zero evidence presented there were cig butts anywhere.
LE surely did not find them.
That information came from the defense, yet they offered no proof they even existed.

I am now wondering what trial you watched because there was testimony about unidentified, male DNA on cigarette butts and that testimony was from prosecution witnesses who did the analysis.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

There's a problem with the motive. It was suggested that the insurance policy was the motive, yet Jason made no effort whatsoever to collect. There's also a problem with opportunity, since the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate how Jason got from A to B without the gasbar witness (who described Jason as being about 5 feet tall). Regarding means, everyone had the means.

He didn't seem to sneak out of the hotel room. He left his room shortly before midnight, went to the front desk and was then seen walking down the hall via video surveillance. There is no evidence that he tilted the camera, only that it was tilted at some point during the night.

There is no evidence that a toddler was drugged. She was never tested for having any kind of drugs in her system.

As for whether Jason is a wife killer, at this point, 8/12 jurors don't agree and no verdict was given.

The majority of jurors did vote for not guilty, so individually they did give a verdict. I'm betting they also gave the attorneys for both sides an ear-full afterwards. It had to be frustrating to spend all that time and I bet the four jurors refused to deliberate objectively.

According to the search warrants from last month, they are still searching for a motive. And you make excellent points about the child. Not only was she not tested for any drug, I don't believe she was even interviewed by LE. The camera is a red herring that became useless as evidence just as soon as the clerk admitted the rock was removed from the door prior to 5 a.m and that it was impossible for any guest to re-enter the hotel using that door after that point.

JMO