Upcoming Trial - 2012

[MyBelle]

Had JY allowed the Fishers to have regular and normal contact with CY it likely never would have come to that. He and his family cut them out of CY's life, not even giving her presents from them. And that was revenge for not publicly making statements to support JY.

WHO DOES THAT? What innocent spouse thinks a child no longer needs any contact with people who so clearly love and adore her? They made it allll about Jason, and not about CY's needs. Scum.

A murder case is owned by the state, not the decedent's family. While a family has a vested interest, they do not control the state, the DA, the police, or 'the people' the state represents. Doesn't matter what the Fishers think or feel...it's not their case...it belongs to NC.

Bottomline: JY's actions and his family's actions caused unnecessary hurt to CY and also to the Fisher family. There was no reason to keep CY from her maternal relatives.

JY's family are not on trial. They are victims. Referring to them as scum contributes nothing to the discussion.

The lawsuit was filed and speaks for itself. The Fishers clearly wanted a battle and attacked Young's mental status. There is no need for you to misrepresent the facts here.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

A quick google search has child custody retainers at between $2,000 and $5,000. There are all sorts of family advocacy groups out there that can assist with costs and/or finding less expensive representation...after all, non-wealthy people have to deal with these issues all the time...it's certainly not a hardship specific to JY. If one were desperate to keep and raise their only child, one might certainly pursue those options.

Please cite even one "family advocacy group" that provides financial or legal resources in private custody battles for parents not on public assistance. Thanks.

 

[Bottle Cap]

I suppose the "public assistance" part is the trick to this challenge. I thought the whole idea was that JY was too financially destitute to fight for his child. If he wasn't too destitute to fight for his child, then its all moot anyway.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Hi back Madeleine! Thanks for remembering me!

 

[MyBelle]

I suppose the "public assistance" part is the trick to this challenge. I thought the whole idea was that JY was too financially destitute to fight for his child. If he wasn't too destitute to fight for his child, then its all moot anyway.

No trick to my question. You made a statement of fact that Young had all kinds of options to help him fight for custody and I merely asked you to provide more information.


Originally Posted by Bottle Cap
A quick google search has child custody retainers at between $2,000 and $5,000. There are all sorts of family advocacy groups out there that can assist with costs and/or finding less expensive representation...after all, non-wealthy people have to deal with these issues all the time...it's certainly not a hardship specific to JY. If one were desperate to keep and raise their only child, one might certainly pursue those options.

 

[Bottle Cap]

I do know legal assistance is available via family advocacy groups for those who find themselves without means and have custody issues. If JY didn't qualify for public assistance, then I don't suppose he would in a position to avail himself of legal aid. You're quite correct there.

I know nothing about the man's finances myself. I drew a conclusion from posts I read here that stated that he was financially unable to obtain legal representation for a custody case that would set him back 2K - 5K in the form of a retainer. To me that says no income, no assets to liquidate, no collateral against which to borrow, no credit card.. basically destitute. If he is not, was not, economically challenged, then it's of course legal aid for a custody issue isn't an option, you're entirely correct.

However, in the case that he was not entirely economically challenged enough to qualify for assistance, the argument that he didn't involve himself in custody issues to to lack of funds becomes a bit odd. That's my personal opinion however, just speaking as a parent.

 

[Madeleine74]

Bottomline is JY did have enough money to have legal representation. His family also had money and could certainly help. Money was not the reason he didn't even try.

He wasn't about to expose himself to any questioning no matter what the cost and he certainly wasn't going to agree to being evaluated by a psychologist. I believe even if legal representation had been offered to him for free he still would have ignored the custody deposition/psychoanalysis.

No, this was about him maintaining his silence and not saying anything about his wife's murder. There's only one reason to refuse to discuss or cooperate with anyone at any time in many years.... the inference is impossible to ignore.

 

[Just the Fax]

WRONG. The Fishers asked for custody and also requested the court order a psych evaluation of Jason Young.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/loca...her_custody_complaint_against_Jason_Young.pdf

They asked for regular visitation numerous times over a period of 2 years.
Each time, he denied their request.

They were left with no choice but to file for custody.
Yep, that finally woke him up.
LF said in court they were willing to negotiate and settle for court ordered visitation (w/ psych evaluation) but Jay just decided to sign her over and be done.
Not at all about $$, it was all about having to talk.

 

[MyBelle]

They asked for regular visitation numerous times over a period of 2 years.
Each time, he denied their request.

They were left with no choice but to file for custody.
Yep, that finally woke him up.
LF said in court they were willing to negotiate and settle for court ordered visitation (w/ psych evaluation) but Jay just decided to sign her over and be done.
Not at all about $$, it was all about having to talk.

The only legal filing I found was the one from Linda Fisher and Meredith Fisher asking for full custody plus a court-ordered psych evaluation.

LF didn't get either, Young only settled with Meredith Fisher as far as sharing custody, so I'm not sure why Linda Fisher said anything at all in court about it. I do believe in court she made it abundantly clear she hated the guy.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Bottomline is JY did have enough money to have legal representation. His family also had money and could certainly help. Money was not the reason he didn't even try.

He wasn't about to expose himself to any questioning no matter what the cost and he certainly wasn't going to agree to being evaluated by a psychologist. I believe even if legal representation had been offered to him for free he still would have ignored the custody deposition/psychoanalysis.

No, this was about him maintaining his silence and not saying anything about his wife's murder. There's only one reason to refuse to discuss or cooperate with anyone at any time in many years.... the inference is impossible to ignore.

BBM. That's your opinion. I have no idea how much money such a battle would cost but I'm betting it is very expensive.

I have a great deal of respect for our Constitution and the right to remain silent. If his lawyer advised Young to remain silent rather than sit for a deposition, I respect Young's decision to take his advice.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Their testimony in court is part of the evidence.

Both MF and LF testified to what led them to the custody path. Both talked in depth about how they were kept from seeing and communicating with CY.

Spin it any which way, but there was no reason to keep CY away from her mother's side of the family -- an aunt and grandmother who clearly love and adore her.

Guesses about what it costs to sit for a custody hearing are based on ??? Without getting a quote from a lawyer, you cannot know. It can be as simple as a couple meetings, crafting a letter offering visitation, suggest a visitation schedule and do a couple edits back and forth to get to an agreement. Done every day in this country and people are not going broke from it. That excuse doesn't wash.

Handing over a child, refusing to speak, refusing to cooperate are signs that point to a guilty conscience. The jury can infer the meaning of someone who does that.

 

[MyBelle]

Their testimony in court is part of the evidence.

Both MF and LF testified to what led them to the custody path. Both talked in depth about how they were kept from seeing and communicating with CY.

Spin it any which way, but there was no reason to keep CY away from her mother's side of the family -- an aunt and grandmother who clearly love and adore her.

The jury will decide credibility of witnesses just as the last jury who voted in favor of the defendant 8-4.

JMO

 

[Cammy]

When police first spoke to the witness, she was not asked to describe who she saw, police only asked what happened. On May 30, 2007, she gave a brief description: she said that she saw a white male, mid-20s to early 30s, wearing a shirt, no coat, and unsure about blue jeans. On April 8, 2009 she again met with officers. That was when she was asked to describe the customer. At that time, she didn`t remember what he was wearing. In October 2009 she didn`t provide a description of the customer. On May 4, 2010, she met again with officers and again didn`t provide a description.

During the hearing, shortly before the trial, she was asked do describe the customer. What she recalled was that he had a little bit of hair (not bald and not a full head of hair), she couldn`t recall the hair color, height, weight and couldn`t remember anything except tha he was just a little bit taller than 5`3``.

I guess what that means is that the customer had a bit of hair and was short.

The gas attendant also confirms that she was not standing at a higher elevation than the customer ... the floor was at the same height throughout the store.

Thanks for finding this, Otto..........
I see her as being a big problem to overcome.
IMO

 

[Cammy]

The jury will decide credibility of witnesses just as the last jury who voted in favor of the defendant 8-4.

JMO

My Belle!! :seeya:

Been reading you for awhile and have been so impressed with your knowledge.

 

[Cammy]

I'm just catching up with the posts so I apologize if someone has already answered this.

One thing the PT found out through JY's testimony is that JY was out of his room around 11:20 pm (supposedly to get his computer charger) at the same time the security camera was unplugged. There was no way to prove he was out of his room at that time until JY testified to it.

Another thing the PT learned is that JY picked up the newspaper at the front desk to check sports scores that were 24 hours old. He could have said that there was an article in there that he wanted to read; that would have been a little more believable.

He also said that he wasn't a good husband to Michelle (that has to be the understatement of the century), but that he was working on his marriage. That was a bald-faced lie. Why BH didn't ask him to list the ways he was working on his marriage is beyond me.

They also found out that his explanation for his party antics and his uncaring attitude towards Michelle was because he was immature. He still doesn't see his behavior as sick and mean. Being immature is a far cry from being sick and mean.

One last thing they (and the rest of us watching) found out when he testified was that he is one thirsty *advertiser censored*. :needdrink:

I know Jason said he left the room twice, but I never heard the other time
was 11:20 pm, I am pretty caught up now, did I miss that?
And, of course, he was seen on camera close to midnight.

 

[Cammy]

No. Jason's testimony from the first trial can not be used in the second trial unless he again testifies and it is inconsistent with his testimony in the first trial.

JMO

Do you think he will testify again?

 

[Cammy]

I find that detail interesting. Ì had thought that Jason lucked upon a gas station without video surveillance, but there were cameras there ... just not working cameras. If Jason was sneaking from the hotel, home and back to the hotel, how did he expect to not be identified at a gas station with video surveillance.

Sounds like he didn't.
Besides, a good arguement could be made for the fact that either way Jason was going to have to pay cash for his gas purchase.
He certainly wasn't going to be able to make a credit card transaction to bust his alibi.
So, go in and pay first, or pump and then go in, why would he get angry to begin with?
Seems like the last thing he would want to do is to make anyone "remember" him.
IMO

 

[otto]

WRONG. The Fishers asked for custody and also requested the court order a psych evaluation of Jason Young.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/loca...her_custody_complaint_against_Jason_Young.pdf

Thank you so much for keeping the facts straight. It is very much appreciated.

It`s almost time for a rumor thread to be set up in order to separate the beliefs from the facts.

 

[otto]

Sounds like he didn't.
Besides, a good arguement could be made for the fact that either way Jason was going to have to pay cash for his gas purchase.
He certainly wasn't going to be able to make a credit card transaction to bust his alibi.
So, go in and pay first, or pump and then go in, why would he get angry to begin with?
Seems like the last thing he would want to do is to make anyone "remember" him.
IMO

Exactly. He`s supposedly sneaking around trying not to be seen or remembered anywhere, and suddenly we have a gas attendant describing him as having some hair, wearing a shirt but no coat, being a little over 5`3 and fighting with her about a gas purchase. At the same time, he`s being so sneaky that he`s wearing two different pairs of shoes while committng murder.

This just doesn`t add up.

 

[otto]

I did like this from Holt in closing:

For “1,693 days,” she said, “he didn’t tell anybody he was at the hotel sleeping. He didn’t tell his family. He didn’t tell his friends. But now he expects you to believe that.”

On the 1,694th day, he took the stand and insisted he is innocent.

It is up to the jury now to decide if he is telling the truth."

It`s too bad it isn`t true. Jason immediately provided investigators with his hotel receipt as proof of where he was when his wife was murdered. His friends and family also knew perfectly well where he was that night. Investigators didn`t want to believe him, but that doesn`t mean they weren`t informed of where he was.

The prosecutor is again trying to pull the wool over the juror`s eyes.