Trial Delayed until at least January

[tarheel8600]

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

When the jury first took a vote, it was 6-6. That is amazing to me given that the state did not connect all the dots and pretty much let JY off the hook when he took the witness stand. Being that the final vote was 8-4, I assume that there were 4 jurors who were able to connect the dots on their own. I bet that they could deliberate objectively and did so. I also bet that they were independent thinkers and were resistant to pressure to just "go along."

I do not believe the state was still searching for a motive one month ago. I do believe that they were searching for information to shore up their theory of the motive being financial. This could be advice that they received from the first jury. If it was, then they were smart to do just that.

The house was searched for over two weeks. By the time they found the medicine dropper and processed the crime scene, it would have been futile to test CY's blood for drugs since it would have been out of her system by then. We do know that she was given a drug that made her sleepy because her DNA was found on the dropper that was in her bedroom. Also, JY's mother testified that JY admitted to her that he sometimes gave CY diluted adult medicine.

I'm not sure about LE policy concerning interviewing a 2 1/2 year old. I don't even know if that's possible. If it was possible, I'm sure JY would not have agreed to it. Imagine letting LE interview CY and he wouldn't even sit down and do an interview with them.

I do not understand how the removal of the rock causes the camera to be a red herring. JY propped open the stairwell exit door so that he could get re-enter the hotel without using a keycard, which he would have had to use if he entered the regular exit door before 6:00 am. The camera was unplugged to prevent JY from being seen accessing that area of the hotel at suspicious times. He accidentally took the wrong staircase when he was leaving the HI at midnight, which is why he came up with the story of needing to get a newspaper from the front desk to check sports scores even though he had access to those scores on his laptop.

When he returned to the HI around 6:30 am, he saw the stairwell door was no longer propped open. He entered the now unlocked glass door. The camera above that door was plugged back in so he tilted it towards the ceiling to avoid detection.

What are the odds that a surveillance camera at the HI where JY was staying would have a surveillance camera tampered with twice at the exact times he would have needed them tampered with if he committed the murder? It had happened only one other time in 9 years, and that was when a couple was having a party there and didn't want the hotel staff seeing all of the people coming in. Coincidence? One of too many.

 

[MyBelle]

When the jury first took a vote, it was 6-6. That is amazing to me given that the state did not connect all the dots and pretty much let JY off the hook when he took the witness stand. Being that the final vote was 8-4, I assume that there were 4 jurors who were able to connect the dots on their own. I bet that they could deliberate objectively and did so. I also bet that they were independent thinkers and were resistant to pressure to just "go along."

I do not believe the state was still searching for a motive one month ago. I do believe that they were searching for information to shore up their theory of the motive being financial. This could be advice that they received from the first jury. If it was, then they were smart to do just that.

The house was searched for over two weeks. By the time they found the medicine dropper and processed the crime scene, it would have been futile to test CY's blood for drugs since it would have been out of her system by then. We do know that she was given a drug that made her sleepy because her DNA was found on the dropper that was in her bedroom. Also, JY's mother testified that JY admitted to her that he sometimes gave CY diluted adult medicine.

I'm not sure about LE policy concerning interviewing a 2 1/2 year old. I don't even know if that's possible. If it was possible, I'm sure JY would not have agreed to it. Imagine letting LE interview CY and he wouldn't even sit down and do an interview with them.

I do not understand how the removal of the rock causes the camera to be a red herring. JY propped open the stairwell exit door so that he could get re-enter the hotel without using a keycard, which he would have had to use if he entered the regular exit door before 6:00 am. The camera was unplugged to prevent JY from being seen accessing that area of the hotel at suspicious times. He accidentally took the wrong staircase when he was leaving the HI at midnight, which is why he came up with the story of needing to get a newspaper from the front desk to check sports scores even though he had access to those scores on his laptop.

When he returned to the HI around 6:30 am, he saw the stairwell door was no longer propped open. He entered the now unlocked glass door. The camera above that door was plugged back in so he tilted it towards the ceiling to avoid detection.

What are the odds that a surveillance camera at the HI where JY was staying would have a surveillance camera tampered with twice at the exact times he would have needed them tampered with if he committed the murder? It had happened only one other time in 9 years, and that was when a couple was having a party there and didn't want the hotel staff seeing all of the people coming in. Coincidence? One of too many.

BBM. Just two examples: Ava Worthington and Blake Davis were both about Cassidy's age and were immediately interviewed by LE. Their father's permission was not required. Testimony at trial was that CY was immediately examined by an EMT. I'm sure if she exhibited symptoms of being drugged, he would have immediately pursued testing.

"Odds" really have nothing to do with the evidence in this case. Testimony at trial was that the exit door was impossible to open from the outside after the rock was removed. Testimony was also given that all the other doors--unlocked or not--were monitored by working security cameras and that all security video was turned over to LE. The prosecution can't unring that bell.

Your suggestion the four "guilty" jurors may have advised the prosecution they needed to "shore up" a financial motive really makes no sense to me. If the juror(s) were already persuaded of guilt, they would have no reason to advise the prosecution they needed to "shore up" anything at all.

JMO-

 

[otto]

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.

I don't turn on a dime. I have believed that Jason was guilty since a few weeks after the murder and I have followed the investigation closely for years. I have seen the actual evidence in trial and I was not impressed. My belief is irrelevant at this point ... it's just the facts, and the facts have gaping holes in them. For example, if gas attendants were canvassed and the only witness had Jason's description wrong, where did he get gas?

Maybe he didn't collect the insurance because he would be deposed, but surely he knew that before he murdered his wife. We all seem to know that ... why wouldn't he? That removes the insurance money as a motive.

It sounds like the child custody judge went a little overboard in granting custody to a relative rather than a parent. If a criminal court couldn't slamdunk him as guilty, how did a civil judge manage to come to that conclusion? Wasn't the child custody evidence related to things like urinating in a living room at a drunken party ... things like that? Was the legal decision influenced by the judge's attitude towards the fact that he didn't contest the custody? It doesn't surprise me that he didn't want to face a trial where all the dirt from his partying days would surface. It was character assassination, not an issue of whether he could parent his daughter. Personally I don't think he was capable of providing a stable environment for his daughter, but at the same time there was serious interference in any efforts he made to establish a career. Which came first?

This investigation was filled with errors, from the failure to complete the rape kit to returning months later to measure the bathroom floor tiles (to give their photos a size reference). What other errors were there? Some of the jewelry is missing ... why hasn't it surfaced in Jason's possession? Surely he didn't throw it away. The main point that came through during trial was that the prosecutors and investigators were really mad at Jason because he elected to remain silent. He had to repeat several times during court testimony that he didn't speak with investigators after he realized he was the only suspect on advice from his lawyer. When given the opportunity to question Jason under oath, the prosecution failed miserably. If they had him, why couldn't they nail him by confusing him in his lies?

Regarding the facts of the case, as they have been presented thus far, the jury is asked to fill a lot of gaps with "what ifs", and that isn't usually enough for a conviction.

 

[otto]

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 thought there was a butt or two in or near the garage ... I suppose it could be argued that investigators weren't too concerned about finding evidence that pointed away from Jason, or that they were sloppy. There was a tooth found mere feet from where the victim was found. How carefully did investigators search the room, home and surrounding area?

 

[otto]

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?

I've listened several times to the 911 tape and I don't hear it.

Someone moved the camera, but there is no evidence that he moved the camera.

 

[otto]

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.

She was 5 feet tall and she testified that he was about the same height. Perhaps with some coaching from investigators she will say what they want her to say, but when left to her own devices, she did not say what investigators wanted her to say.

I see the gas attendants testimony as very weak and again, there's no evidence that Jason moved the camera. It's only if he is plugged into the murder that all the facts can be neatly arranged around him with a tidy timeline.

 

[Just the Fax]

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

No video needed hon.

JLY testified he exited out the stairwell door at midnight.
And no, the door was not secure, as JLY testified he propped that door so it would not close.

 

[Just the Fax]

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

Really?
I don't recall a single photo where they were found.
I don't recall a single witness that told us where they were found.
I don't recall a single witness that collected such items.

W/O evidence they even existed in the home, the whole scenario is fiction.

 

[Just the Fax]

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

Huh?

The camera a "red herring":waitasec:

The rock propping the stairwell door was removed by staff at 5:50AM.
JLY reentered the hotel at 6:35AM through the glass hall door (unlocked at 6AM). He then immediately slipped into the stairwell and pushed the camera to the ceiling.

 

[Just the Fax]

I thought there was a butt or two in or near the garage ... I suppose it could be argued that investigators weren't too concerned about finding evidence that pointed away from Jason, or that they were sloppy. There was a tooth found mere feet from where the victim was found. How carefully did investigators search the room, home and surrounding area?

Again, there is zero evidence cig butts were found in the garage, or anywhere else.

The defense simply told us that, yet offered no evidence what so ever.
Pure BS, imo.

 

[Just the Fax]

I've listened several times to the 911 tape and I don't hear it.

Someone moved the camera, but there is no evidence that he moved the camera.

Well, the judge ordered CY's words deleted from the replay in court as well as the transcript. If her utterances were benign, why was that done?

The camera was unplugged at 11:20PM and moved at 6:35AM.
JLY cannot prove he was in his room at either time.

Just another piece of powerful CE.
The jury is free to decide who they think the most likely person would be.
Not once, but twice, 6 1/2 hours apart.

After considering the state's time-line and tons of other CE, basic common sense tells most people it could only be JLY.

 

[Just the Fax]

She was 5 feet tall and she testified that he was about the same height. Perhaps with some coaching from investigators she will say what they want her to say, but when left to her own devices, she did not say what investigators wanted her to say.

I see the gas attendants testimony as very weak and again, there's no evidence that Jason moved the camera. It's only if he is plugged into the murder that all the facts can be neatly arranged around him with a tidy timeline.

Not what she told investigators 4 years earlier, when it was fresh on her mind.
At the pre-trial hearing, Spivey said she told him in 2007, "he was tall and had blondish hair". I was there in court and heard that statement.

Sure, Holt dropped the ball yet again, as she could have easily rehabilitated Gracie and directed her back 4 years earlier when she had it 100% right.
Not only did she recall him because she cursed her, he didn't even bother to get his $5.00 change. Tell me, WTH would do that? ????

 

[otto]

Not what she told investigators 4 years earlier, when it was fresh on her mind.
At the pre-trial hearing, Spivey said she told him in 2007, "he was tall and had blondish hair". I was there in court and heard that statement.

Sure, Holt dropped the ball yet again, as she could have easily rehabilitated Gracie and directed her back 4 years earlier when she had it 100% right.
Not only did she recall him because she cursed her, he didn't even bother to get his $5.00 change. Tell me, WTH would do that? ????

If there was a written statement given by the gas attendant stating that Jason was tall and blond, why wasn't that statement entered into evidence. It seems that the prosecution could have directed her to that statement and asked her to read from it. That would have cleared up her credibility instantly.

 

[otto]

Well, the judge ordered CY's words deleted from the replay in court as well as the transcript. If her utterances were benign, why was that done?

The camera was unplugged at 11:20PM and moved at 6:35AM.
JLY cannot prove he was in his room at either time.

Just another piece of powerful CE.
The jury is free to decide who they think the most likely person would be.
Not once, but twice, 6 1/2 hours apart.

After considering the state's time-line and tons of other CE, basic common sense tells most people it could only be JLY.

Is there a link to a judge's order directing that the child's voice should be removed from the 911 call? It seems unusual that a judge would order that a 911 tape be altered.

 

[Just the Fax]

If there was a written statement given by the gas attendant stating that Jason was tall and blond, why wasn't that statement entered into evidence. It seems that the prosecution could have directed her to that statement and asked her to read from it. That would have cleared up her credibility instantly.

Why?
I suggest asking Ms Holt.
I am as puzzled as you are.

 

[Just the Fax]

Is there a link to a judge's order directing that the child's voice should be removed from the 911 call? It seems unusual that a judge would order that a 911 tape be altered.

I heard it was agreed in chambers.
There was no way to validate what a 2 year old meant w/o putting her on the stand. No way that will happen 5 years later.

 

[otto]

I heard it was agreed in chambers.
There was no way to validate what a 2 year old meant w/o putting her on the stand. No way that will happen 5 years later.

You're suggesting that the judge and all lawyers related to the case agreed that the two year said something crucial during the 911 call and therefore agreed that her voice would be muted in the recording. I have never heard that before. I've only heard sleuthers talking about hearing the child speaking and, in that jumbled up language of a two year old, believing that the 2 year old clearly said "daddy did it". I've been around enough 2 year olds, even bright ones, and usually mom is the best one to decipher what they are saying. What sounds like "I want juice" is really "I just pooped".

I could understand muting the child to protect her, but not because she said something critical to the investigation.

 

[otto]

Here's tht 911 recording:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/audio/1119462/

 

[otto]

Well, the judge ordered CY's words deleted from the replay in court as well as the transcript. If her utterances were benign, why was that done?

The camera was unplugged at 11:20PM and moved at 6:35AM.
JLY cannot prove he was in his room at either time.

Just another piece of powerful CE.
The jury is free to decide who they think the most likely person would be.
Not once, but twice, 6 1/2 hours apart.

After considering the state's time-line and tons of other CE, basic common sense tells most people it could only be JLY.

I thought that Jason checked in shortly before midnight and picked up a newspaper at the front desk at 11:55 PM. Was he already at the hotel before 11:20?

 

[gracielee]

Again, there is zero evidence cig butts were found in the garage, or anywhere else.

The defense simply told us that, yet offered no evidence what so ever.
Pure BS, imo.

Much like in the Casey Anthony trial where the defense told us that GA sexually abused CA, yet never presented a shred of evidence of it occuring. The judge instructs the jury that 'what the lawyers say is NOT evidence and is not to be considered as such.' Any red herrings in the JLY case were thrown out by his lawyers in their opening statement, but never backed up with facts or testimony IMO.