**Verdict watch weekend discussion thread** 3/3-4/2012

[the couger]

LOL, I think the point in question relates to wearing seatbelts. Would Michelle have any reason to lie to the officer about whether she was wearing her seatbelt? She was there when the report was given and had a responsibility to correct Jason if he lied ... she didn't correct him, so it's fair to assume that it is true that she was wearing her seatbelt.

I think the wearing of a seat belt is only one question in the State Troopers report. What the INVESTIGATION showed was it was a accident, how fast he was driving at time of accident, was there evidence he ran off of road and over corrected and if JY description of the accident matched the investigators facts of the accident. Stories MATCHED..

 

[otto]

The same state trooper was asked again years later if he thought there was anything suspicious, after MY's death.

He still replied NO.

Why would he lie?

He wouldn't. Still, his report and testimony was omitted by the prosecution because it did not support their theory. The prosecution instead chose to introduce information about the accident by presenting rumor and gossip to the jury.

 

[mck16]

What would they find in his SUV?
They had his vehicle for a very long time.

I said that based on a forensic show I saw last night. They had been over and over the truck and found nothing. Then someone saw a very tiny spot on the back of the seat belt clasp. It turned out to be the victim's blood. But they had originally said nothing was in the truck. It was just a thought.

 

[Lucky89]

IMO> Bottom line the report states MY had seat belt on but the trooper has no way of knowing if she did or didn't. Did the trooper state why JY ran off the road?

 

[Talina]

In order to find JY guilty in this case, the jury has to make a lot of assumptions. If there was actual proof of tampering with the camera, stopping for gas, etc, this case would be a slam dunk imo. But it's not so the state has to reach and omit information to make their case look the way they want it to.

I think a big part of the verdict will hinge on whether or not the jurors think that the hush puppy prints are JY's. I don't think they will be willing to assume all of the other things, but if they believe the prints are his they might convict.

JMO

BBM

I think either verdict, G or NG, will require a lot of assumptions to be made and hopefully common sense is used to make those assumptions.

I believe there to be proof of the camera being tampered with. It was unplugged, it was pointed upwards. Those are facts in evidence, not assumptions. The assumptions are who one believes to be the culprit? For me, that is where the probability versus possibility debate begins. Anything that is possible is not always probable.

IMO

 

[citygirl]

I'm not providing a convoluted explanation.....I simply asked "What testimony proved there even was an accident?"

I am in the way back wondering if you ever got a straight answer?
Nothing convoluted just a simple explanation. It may take me until tomorrow to find out. I will just keep plugging along.

 

[justbetweenus]

Honestly, I'd not be surprised at all if people in an accident did not tell the investigator that they were not wearing their seat belt. If an anonymous poll were taken about whether or not you'd be honest about that fact if asked by LE after a traffic stop or after an accident, I would bet we'd see that the majority of the people would say they'd say they were wearing their seat belt. Two reasons: (1) avoid the citation for failure to wear seat belt and (2) avoid any possibility insurance may fine a clause to deny medical claims due to no seat belt.

In this instance, we know from the highway patrol testimony that he took the report from JY not MY. We know from his testimony that he did not separately question MY. Granted he said (IIRC) that she was nearby and could have disputed anything he said. Seriously, though, does anyone really believe she is going to dispute JY to the highway patrol right there in front of JY? Given they have just had an accident, she is pregnant and probably (naturally so) worried about the baby I'd expect her to just be ready for it to all be over with so she could calm down.

We also know from his testimony that he was not the first on the scene of the accident and that when he arrived both MY and JY had been taken to the hospital. There was already first responders that had been there for some time whom I suspect and IMO had taken their own perusal of the incident, formed opinions and IMO passed this on to the highway patrol when he arrived. We do know from testimony one of those already on the scene was the brother of a life long friend of JY. In a small rural community, this does go a long way in taking someone's word for an event or incident.

I truly believe the highway patrol report to be one of a formality rather than a full blown accident investigation. Since there didn't appear to be anything untoward on the surface, what was there to investigate. All accident reports are not a full investigation, IMO.

I'm not saying either the sheriff's deputy (brother of the JY's friend) or the highway patrol fabricated anything. I'm just saying I don't find it unlikely that they'd take JY's word for whatever he said happened and be done with it.

IMO

Great post!

 

[fromageball]

I am suggesting MY was not interviewed about the accident details.
You may want to go back and watch the testimony.

She wasn't interviewed, but she was standing right there. Since she was known as a meticulous, detail-oriented person, I don't think she would have let JY get away with anything funky.

 

[the couger]

I think he said that he tried a couple of matches but it didn't work so he lit up the entire match package.

Exactly, my point. Talk about posting incorrect information..

 

[SteelerGirl43]

He wouldn't. Still, his report and testimony was omitted by the prosecution because it did not support their theory. The prosecution instead chose to introduce information about the accident by presenting rumor and gossip to the jury.

When people have nothing & are desperate thats exactly what they do.. Remember Jose Baez... LOL!!! Sneaky snake.. Im betting the PT has been looking in the same mirror that Jose used...

 

[Wolfpack]

BBM

I think either verdict, G or NG, will require a lot of assumptions to be made and hopefully common sense is used to make those assumptions.

I believe there to be proof of the camera being tampered with. It was unplugged, it was pointed upwards. Those are facts in evidence, not assumptions. The assumptions are who one believes to be the culprit? For me, that is where the probability versus possibility debate begins. Anything that is possible is not always probable.

IMO

You said it best. Either verdict, guilty, or not guilty has a lot of assumptions.

But, the prosecution has the burden of proof. So, if their guilty verdict requires assumptions, they lose. The defense does not have the same burden of proof, so they can assume all day long if they want to.

 

[fromageball]

BBM

I think either verdict, G or NG, will require a lot of assumptions to be made and hopefully common sense is used to make those assumptions.

I believe there to be proof of the camera being tampered with. It was unplugged, it was pointed upwards. Those are facts in evidence, not assumptions. The assumptions are who one believes to be the culprit? For me, that is where the probability versus possibility debate begins. Anything that is possible is not always probable.

IMO

There is proof that the camera was tampered with. I don't dispute that. There is not proof that JY did the tampering.

A NG verdict doesn't mean innocent, so the jury doesn't have to assume anything to get to that. They just have to see reasonable doubt in the state's case.

 

[citygirl]

I was hoping that they would find the accident victim, but when MY's email came in asking Shelle to try and find out about the accident because Jase was so stessing, that was as good as finding him.

Not for me. Just because he told her doesn't make it so. No way.
Why would anyone believe what he says?
He told his wife he was going to Wilmington for a boys weekend.
He told the Wilmington boys he was going on a business trip to Orlando.
It wasn't a business trip.
He was in Orlando visiting his main squeeze. The one he hoped to have a child with.

 

[the couger]

Lol, Jason did not say he had 2 matches,
He said it was windy and he ended up lighting the matchbook to light his cigar.

Man, and how about the cigar purchase from Antonio's in Tampa?

Looks like Jase did smoke a cigar a few times !!
:wink:

Yes he did, yes he did..:woohoo:

 

[gngr~snap]

It happened again 2 days ago. Wife was 5 months pregnant. Luckily he wasn't able to kill his entire family! (or himself) It happens when men don't want kids or more kids.
It happens when men have a habit of running around. They love sex! BUT pregnancy? not so much! If they ever develop a profile of men who murder the women they impregnate JY, just like Scott Peterson would fit the mold nicely. IMO MY is lucky JY didn't kill her before she had her first baby and should never have attempted a 2nd child with him ~however I am NOT saying SHE knew that! I find JY to be a pompass creepy person.
~moo
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region...talized-after-shooting-in-suburban-lake-worth

 

[5bigfish5]

Right, he said he was trained to look for anything suspicious...and I remember hearing that both were wearing seat belts.

Not to mention JY may have been the one to speak to police, but MY was standing right there. If there had been anything weird she would have spoken up.

Not really sure that is true. Something was going on. Michelle's body was starting to reject Jason's second attempt at being a father, we all know what happened to the 3rd try.

 

[mck16]

Yes he did, yes he did..:woohoo:

Guess he was like me and didn't smoke in front of his friends. Wasn't there testimony by buddies that they had never seen him smoke? I don't smoke in front of lots of people cause I know they don't like it. jmo

 

[Cammy]

He wouldn't. Still, his report and testimony was omitted by the prosecution because it did not support their theory. The prosecution instead chose to introduce information about the accident by presenting rumor and gossip to the jury.

And, again, we know how they treated Mrs. Beaver because her car sighting upset their timeline.

I would have loved to have been there when Mrs. Hensley came forward saying she saw a car too.

:floorlaugh:

 

[citygirl]

That hokey alibi call to the home VM at 7:49AM after he killed her should be soooo obvious. Thanks Collins, for playing it twice to the jury. "Regular ole Jason", LOL.

He rattled off about 4-5 details in his plans, yet he never said 'give me a call back' cause i'm on the road a while? If I was a juror, I would point at that call as obvious pure BS.

And he identified himself. He said this is Jay or Jason. Weird. What husband does that? Not mine and we have been married for 35 years. Not normal.

 

[Cammy]

I said that based on a forensic show I saw last night. They had been over and over the truck and found nothing. Then someone saw a very tiny spot on the back of the seat belt clasp. It turned out to be the victim's blood. But they had originally said nothing was in the truck. It was just a thought.

I wasn't doubting you, mck16.

I hope you didn't think that.