Upcoming Trial - 2012

[Cammy]

Today, Beth Karas said the prosecution will use JY's testimony from the first trial in their CIC, then use the evidence they have to try to refute what he testified to. She also said they do not have to say the testimony is from the first trial, just that he said it.

so

But, ,really what is there to refute?

Rock vs. Twig?

 

[tarheel8600]

But, ,really what is there to refute?

Rock vs. Twig?

A rock was found propping open the exit door by the night clerk. A rock was tested and was found to have had 3 of JY's DNA markers on it. He knew this before he took the witness stand due to the rules of discovery so he came up with the story of propping the door open with a twig to totally remove himself from the rock. Evidently, JY thought that a rock with 3 of his DNA markers on it could be perceived as damning to a jury.

The more important and logical question is:
Why would a man leave his 4th floor room and leave his hotel room door unlatched twice, which left his valuables unsecured, and then he went downstairs and propped open the exit door twice when all he had to do is take his keycard with him and A) avoid the chance of his computer and other valuables being stolen and B) avoid having to find something to prop open the exit door with?

Remember, this was the same man who hid $500 in a wallet in his closet in his home. Does it seem logical that a man who would go to such great lengths to hide money in his own home would leave his laptop and other valuables unsecured twice in a hotel full of strangers?

I know that people who stay in hotels will sometimes leave their doors propped open to run down the hallway to get ice or a soda. I do not know of people who leave their rooms propped open or unlocked to go down 4 floors. It makes no sense whatsoever. A keycard can easily be tucked into a pocket, a shoe, a sock, or where ever. It would take a lot more effort and time to find something to prop open an exit door with than it would take to stick a keycard into a slot and open the door. Furthermore, a person would be taking a chance that late at night that someone would come along and remove the object propping open the door, therefore, leaving that person locked out.

Imagine this: the very night that JY propped open an exit door twice with a twig, a night clerk found the very same exit door propped open with a rock AND the security camera near this exit door had been unplugged. After the camera was plugged back in around 5:00am, it was then pushed up to the ceiling at 6:35 am. All of this on the very night that JY's wife is murdered.

I believe you posted that a security camera had been tampered with before at this same hotel. While you are correct in stating that, it is misleading because you left out the part that it had happened only once before 9 years earlier. A couple was having a party that night and tampered with the camera so that the night clerk wouldn't see all of the people coming and going to and from their hotel room, and the camera was only tampered with once that night. Other than that instance, a security camera had never been tampered with in the 9 years that followed that incident.

I believe that it is important to tell the whole story so that people can understand that the tampering of a security camera was not a common occurrence at the Hillsville HI. And having the same camera tampered with twice within a 7 hour period was unheard of until JY "stayed" there on the night his wife was brutally murdered.

 

[MyBelle]

Today, Beth Karas said the prosecution will use JY's testimony from the first trial in their CIC, then use the evidence they have to try to refute what he testified to. She also said they do not have to say the testimony is from the first trial, just that he said it.

so

She must not have followed the case very carefully or is referring to their opening statement, which isn't evidence.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

But, ,really what is there to refute?

Rock vs. Twig?

you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?

 

[otto]

A rock was found propping open the exit door by the night clerk. A rock was tested and was found to have had 3 of JY's DNA markers on it. He knew this before he took the witness stand due to the rules of discovery so he came up with the story of propping the door open with a twig to totally remove himself from the rock. Evidently, JY thought that a rock with 3 of his DNA markers on it could be perceived as damning to a jury.

The more important and logical question is:
Why would a man leave his 4th floor room and leave his hotel room door unlatched twice, which left his valuables unsecured, and then he went downstairs and propped open the exit door twice when all he had to do is take his keycard with him and A) avoid the chance of his computer and other valuables being stolen and B) avoid having to find something to prop open the exit door with?

Remember, this was the same man who hid $500 in a wallet in his closet in his home. Does it seem logical that a man who would go to such great lengths to hide money in his own home would leave his laptop and other valuables unsecured twice in a hotel full of strangers?

I know that people who stay in hotels will sometimes leave their doors propped open to run down the hallway to get ice or a soda. I do not know of people who leave their rooms propped open or unlocked to go down 4 floors. It makes no sense whatsoever. A keycard can easily be tucked into a pocket, a shoe, a sock, or where ever. It would take a lot more effort and time to find something to prop open an exit door with than it would take to stick a keycard into a slot and open the door. Furthermore, a person would be taking a chance that late at night that someone would come along and remove the object propping open the door, therefore, leaving that person locked out.

Imagine this: the very night that JY propped open an exit door twice with a twig, a night clerk found the very same exit door propped open with a rock AND the security camera near this exit door had been unplugged. After the camera was plugged back in around 5:00am, it was then pushed up to the ceiling at 6:35 am. All of this on the very night that JY's wife is murdered.

I believe you posted that a security camera had been tampered with before at this same hotel. While you are correct in stating that, it is misleading because you left out the part that it had happened only once before 9 years earlier. A couple was having a party that night and tampered with the camera so that the night clerk wouldn't see all of the people coming and going to and from their hotel room, and the camera was only tampered with once that night. Other than that instance, a security camera had never been tampered with in the 9 years that followed that incident.

I believe that it is important to tell the whole story so that people can understand that the tampering of a security camera was not a common occurrence at the Hillsville HI. And having the same camera tampered with twice within a 7 hour period was unheard of until JY "stayed" there on the night his wife was brutally murdered.

That still doesn`t explain why the camera was tampered with around midnight when the suspect would only have been trying to avoid being seen in the morning. Tipping the camera up once was sufficient ... what`s the explanation for the camera being unplugged 7 hours before he supposedly needed to enter through a locked door.

 

[otto]

She must not have followed the case very carefully or is referring to their opening statement, which isn't evidence.

JMO

For some strange reason this case has suddenly received some attention from CNN ... with Ms Nancy Grace claiming that the child was hiding under the bed, the victim was pregnant with a 5 year old, and all sorts of strange information. I doubt anything reported about the case on CNN is based in fact.

GRACE: And also, a 29-year-old pregnant North Carolina mother, a championship cheerleader, found murdered inside her Raleigh home, her 2- year-old little girl found hiding under the bed unharmed. Tonight, we want justice!

Nancy, this was a brutal crime of Michelle young who was a business executive, the mother of a 2-year-old, pregnant with a 5-year-old,

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1201/20/ng.01.html

 

[otto]

you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?

Maybe they`ve completed DNA analysis on random sticks now too and plan to present that as evidence as well.

 

[tarheel8600]

That still doesn`t explain why the camera was tampered with around midnight when the suspect would only have been trying to avoid being seen in the morning. Tipping the camera up once was sufficient ... what`s the explanation for the camera being unplugged 7 hours before he supposedly needed to enter through a locked door.

He didn't want to be seen leaving at midnight and not returning shortly thereafter. If he hadn't unplugged the camera, he would have been seen leaving but not re-entering within 15-20 minutes.

 

[tarheel8600]

For some strange reason this case has suddenly received some attention from CNN ... with Ms Nancy Grace claiming that the child was hiding under the bed, the victim was pregnant with a 5 year old, and all sorts of strange information. I doubt anything reported about the case on CNN is based in fact.

GRACE: And also, a 29-year-old pregnant North Carolina mother, a championship cheerleader, found murdered inside her Raleigh home, her 2- year-old little girl found hiding under the bed unharmed. Tonight, we want justice!

Nancy, this was a brutal crime of Michelle young who was a business executive, the mother of a 2-year-old, pregnant with a 5-year-old,

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1201/20/ng.01.html

Finally, we can agree on something Otto. I watched the NG episode you are speaking of last Friday night. Whoever does her background fact-checking needs to be fired ASAP. They had the facts all wrong.

I noticed when she said that Michelle was pregnant with a 5-year-old and that CY was found hiding under the bed. NG is an idiot.

The guy from Chapel Hill who had been following the case and "knew the case inside and out" acted like he knew nothing about the crime whatsoever.

It does make me stop and wonder how much of what we hear on these journalistic talk shows is the truth and how much of it is mistaken information or just plain old lies.

 

[otto]

Finally, we can agree on something Otto. I watched the NG episode you are speaking of last Friday night. Whoever does her background fact-checking needs to be fired ASAP. They had the facts all wrong.

I noticed when she said that Michelle was pregnant with a 5-year-old and that CY was found hiding under the bed. NG is an idiot.

The guy from Chapel Hill who had been following the case and "knew the case inside and out" acted like he knew nothing about the crime whatsoever.

It does make me stop and wonder how much of what we hear on these journalistic talk shows is the truth and how much of it is mistaken information or just plain old lies.

It does leave me a little skeptical regarding comments made about the upcoming trial. In theory, it`s probably true that during any second trial, where the suspect testified during the first trial, the prosecution will attempt to contradict that testimony. That`s pretty much common sense. Specifically, regarding this trial, I don`t think the suspect`s testimony left him open to contradiction - but that remains to be seen. I wonder if his testimony will be misrepresented ... like suggestions during the last trial that he didn`t provide an alibi.

 

[tarheel8600]

you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/image_gallery/9726260/

Use this link and look at pictures 28 and 29.

How "random" does that rock look to you?

 

[tarheel8600]

It does leave me a little skeptical regarding comments made about the upcoming trial. In theory, it`s probably true that during any second trial, where the suspect testified during the first trial, the prosecution will attempt to contradict that testimony. That`s pretty much common sense. Specifically, regarding this trial, I don`t think the suspect`s testimony left him open to contradiction - but that remains to be seen. I wonder if his testimony will be misrepresented ... like suggestions during the last trial that he didn`t provide an alibi.

I was speaking of the NG episode that we agreed on.

Obviously, we do not agree on the facts of Michelle Young's murder, the subsequent investigation, or the results of the first trial.

I do not see how JY's testimony could be misrepresented. JY is not a person who is low-functioning or a person who has a low I.Q. He completely understands what he said on the witness stand in the first trial, and he is bright and verbal enough to defend himself against misrepresentation, which I do not believe the PT would attempt to do. He also has a cunning lawyer; the NC taxpayers are providing JY with one of the top performing lawyers there is.

Otto, I respect your right to have your own opinion, and I respect your right to voice that opinion. Believe it or not, I am usually very skeptical of an accused person's guilt. I try to find a reasonable "out" for the accused because convicting an innocent person is a tragedy. I guess that is the "innocent until proven guilty" coming out in me that I so believe in.

I served on a murder trial about 13 years ago in a county that neighbors Wake. It lasted 3 weeks and was a DP case. The DA had nothing on the guy. No confession, no fingerprints, no one to put him at the crime scene, no known relationship between him and the victim, no evidence that he even knew the victim, they did no forensic testing, there was no unaccounted time in his alibi, and they did not have one piece of circumstantial evidence against him.

I fought hard for him in the jury room. He was Hispanic, and unfortunately, I think that swayed some of the other jurors. In the end, we found him NG.

I'm telling you this so that you will know that I am not a person who thinks that just because someone is accused of a crime or arrested for a crime that it means he/she is automatically guilty.

Having said that, I have studied this case for a long time, and I cannot see that anyone other than JY committed this murder. My reasoning skills cause me to believe without a doubt that he killed his wife and unborn son. I wish it weren't true because it is a horrifying thought that someone as intelligent and caring as Michelle would fall in love and marry someone who was capable of rendering a beating upon her that was so vicious that it made seasoned LE sick at the scene of the crime.

I pray my girls choose wisely when they pick a mate for life. I do not know how the Fishers have survived this. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, ever.

 

[kantoo]

She must not have followed the case very carefully or is referring to their opening statement, which isn't evidence.

JMO

Cases in Chief: After the opening statements, the plaintiff, who has the burden of proving his allegations, begins his case in chief, in which he attempts to prove each element of each legal claim alleged in the complaint (civil) or indictment (criminal). After the plaintiff has concluded his case in chief (and assuming the judge does not dismiss the plaintiff's claim for lack of proof), the defendant presents his case in chief. The defendant presents evidence to refute the plaintiff's proof and establish any affirmative defenses. The defendant may also present evidence to support claims he has against the plaintiff (counterclaims) or third parties (cross-claims).

During the case in chief, a party may offer evidence of any type in any order it wishes. Before the evidence may be presented to the jury, however, it must be admitted into evidence by the judge
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trial

 

[otto]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/image_gallery/9726260/

Use this link and look at pictures 28 and 29.

How "random" does that rock look to you?

It`s not the size and appearance of the rock, it`s the fact that a 3 allele match is meaningless. If you read about the Amanda Knox trial, you will find that a much stronger match was rejected by the courts because it was not valid. If a 3 allele match had been used in Italy to argue that Knox was guilty, everyone would have laughed at it. I don`t see this as any different ... a 3 allele match should never be used to implicate someone in a crime ... ever.

 

[otto]

I was speaking of the NG episode that we agreed on.

Obviously, we do not agree on the facts of Michelle Young's murder, the subsequent investigation, or the results of the first trial.

I do not see how JY's testimony could be misrepresented. JY is not a person who is low-functioning or a person who has a low I.Q. He completely understands what he said on the witness stand in the first trial, and he is bright and verbal enough to defend himself against misrepresentation, which I do not believe the PT would attempt to do. He also has a cunning lawyer; the NC taxpayers are providing JY with one of the top performing lawyers there is.

Otto, I respect your right to have your own opinion, and I respect your right to voice that opinion. Believe it or not, I am usually very skeptical of an accused person's guilt. I try to find a reasonable "out" for the accused because convicting an innocent person is a tragedy. I guess that is the "innocent until proven guilty" coming out in me that I so believe in.

I served on a murder trial about 13 years ago in a county that neighbors Wake. It lasted 3 weeks and was a DP case. The DA had nothing on the guy. No confession, no fingerprints, no one to put him at the crime scene, no known relationship between him and the victim, no evidence that he even knew the victim, they did no forensic testing, there was no unaccounted time in his alibi, and they did not have one piece of circumstantial evidence against him.

I fought hard for him in the jury room. He was Hispanic, and unfortunately, I think that swayed some of the other jurors. In the end, we found him NG.

I'm telling you this so that you will know that I am not a person who thinks that just because someone is accused of a crime or arrested for a crime that it means he/she is automatically guilty.

Having said that, I have studied this case for a long time, and I cannot see that anyone other than JY committed this murder. My reasoning skills cause me to believe without a doubt that he killed his wife and unborn son. I wish it weren't true because it is a horrifying thought that someone as intelligent and caring as Michelle would fall in love and marry someone who was capable of rendering a beating upon her that was so vicious that it made seasoned LE sick at the scene of the crime.

I pray my girls choose wisely when they pick a mate for life. I do not know how the Fishers have survived this. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, ever.

I think the difference is between not being able to imagine anyone else doing this and proof that the suspect is guilty. It`s not up to a jury to determine if Jason is the most likely suspect given that no other suspects have been identified, but rather to determine whether the evidence conclusively proves that Jason is guilty.

As soon as we accept evidence like a 3 allele DNA match, we`ve crossed into that territory of no longer questioning whether what is presented as evidence is actually evidence. Since the prosecution`s theory is based on information that is not evidence, I`m skeptical of their motive: whether it`s to solve the crime or pin it on the husband.

Additionally, in order to believe that Jason is guilty, we have to ignore evidence, such as the unknown DNA on the medicine cap and the jewelry box. Those items are included in the prosecution`s theory, yet they point in a different direction. The prosecution simply asks us to ignore that evidence ... for no reason other than it doesn`t ft their theory. We have the two sets of footprints which cannot be said to be similar to Jason`s shoes without Jason`s shoes. Again, statistically, like the 3 allele DNA match, it`s not conclusive of anything. It seems like the prosecution`s argument is based on hand waving and imagine if ... imagine if Jason drugged his daughter, but ignore the unknown DNA on he medicine cap, imagine if Jason touched this rock, but ignore the fact that a 3 allele match is never considered to be evidence. It goes on and on like that.

 

[Just the Fax]

No otto, just because there could be some evidence of an unknown person(s) in the home, none of that trumps or excludes the strong, compelling evidence that Jason Young was the killer. The fact is, he is no less guilty of 1st degree murder, no matter how many accompliceses the defense may suggest were in the home with him.

Carry on.

 

[Just the Fax]

you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?

Rocks this size don't jump 3 1/2 feet from the quiet landscape to the middle of the sidewalk on their own.
This is the rock kicked out of the door jamb by hotel staff.
Not only is it the one that was propping the fire door open, it had JLY's DNA.

 

[Cammy]

A rock was found propping open the exit door by the night clerk. A rock was tested and was found to have had 3 of JY's DNA markers on it. He knew this before he took the witness stand due to the rules of discovery so he came up with the story of propping the door open with a twig to totally remove himself from the rock. Evidently, JY thought that a rock with 3 of his DNA markers on it could be perceived as damning to a jury.

The more important and logical question is:
Why would a man leave his 4th floor room and leave his hotel room door unlatched twice, which left his valuables unsecured, and then he went downstairs and propped open the exit door twice when all he had to do is take his keycard with him and A) avoid the chance of his computer and other valuables being stolen and B) avoid having to find something to prop open the exit door with?

Remember, this was the same man who hid $500 in a wallet in his closet in his home. Does it seem logical that a man who would go to such great lengths to hide money in his own home would leave his laptop and other valuables unsecured twice in a hotel full of strangers?

I know that people who stay in hotels will sometimes leave their doors propped open to run down the hallway to get ice or a soda. I do not know of people who leave their rooms propped open or unlocked to go down 4 floors. It makes no sense whatsoever. A keycard can easily be tucked into a pocket, a shoe, a sock, or where ever. It would take a lot more effort and time to find something to prop open an exit door with than it would take to stick a keycard into a slot and open the door. Furthermore, a person would be taking a chance that late at night that someone would come along and remove the object propping open the door, therefore, leaving that person locked out.

Imagine this: the very night that JY propped open an exit door twice with a twig, a night clerk found the very same exit door propped open with a rock AND the security camera near this exit door had been unplugged. After the camera was plugged back in around 5:00am, it was then pushed up to the ceiling at 6:35 am. All of this on the very night that JY's wife is murdered.

I believe you posted that a security camera had been tampered with before at this same hotel. While you are correct in stating that, it is misleading because you left out the part that it had happened only once before 9 years earlier. A couple was having a party that night and tampered with the camera so that the night clerk wouldn't see all of the people coming and going to and from their hotel room, and the camera was only tampered with once that night. Other than that instance, a security camera had never been tampered with in the 9 years that followed that incident.

I believe that it is important to tell the whole story so that people can understand that the tampering of a security camera was not a common occurrence at the Hillsville HI. And having the same camera tampered with twice within a 7 hour period was unheard of until JY "stayed" there on the night his wife was brutally murdered.

Okay, so Jason is being careless with his stuff in the room and his security by leaving the door open for the two instances that he left.

But, then what about the fact, he supposedly left it open all the way from midnight to 6am?

That is taking way more of a chance of not only being robbed but being found out you were no longer in your room.

Also, those room doors do look pretty heavy and probably do make a loud sound when being pulled shut.

Jason checked into the hotel at 11PM, I doubt maybe people were wandering the halls or he had anything to worry about from a robber.

It doesn't matter what the prior incident concerning a camera being messed with was about, only that it was !!
Same camera, same stairwell, same hotel.

I also can not find anything anywhere that says Jason left his room at 11:20 PM.....??

Do you know where I can look?

But, talking of possible missing things.......

32) Michelle's rings are missing, and according to testimony from MF she never ever took them off.

IMO

 

[Cammy]

you mean, the RANDOM rock, they tried to misrepresent as evidence?

Yep,that one.

 

[Cammy]

It`s not the size and appearance of the rock, it`s the fact that a 3 allele match is meaningless. If you read about the Amanda Knox trial, you will find that a much stronger match was rejected by the courts because it was not valid. If a 3 allele match had been used in Italy to argue that Knox was guilty, everyone would have laughed at it. I don`t see this as any different ... a 3 allele match should never be used to implicate someone in a crime ... ever.

Testimony from state expert witness. Shawn Weiss on the rock:

"Tests found that a dna sample which potentially belongs to 1-79 caucasian males and that indicated to him it was "NOWHERE NEAR A MATCH" to being a match to Jason's DNA"


Source:
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9732796/