Jason Young to get new trial #2

[JusticeFever]

I didn't mean there was a sexual encounter - only that she got together with him twice after Michelle was murdered.

So, then they didn't hook up!! Thanks for clearing that up. The only other time that was mentioned was after MM learned the news and she flew in from Florida and all their friends met with Jason on the front porch at MF's house.

 

[oenophile]

not even a third trial will.erase any of the facts

True, the problem is that people are confusing facts with opinion.

jason young is the only person who hated michelle to this extent ergo beating her mercilessly to death...he couldnt stop until exhausted.

That is three opinions that are not supported by evidence. There is no basis for saying that JY hated MY. There is no basis for saying he beat her to death. And given that, there is no basis for him "not stopping".

this case was is domestic violence per all the facts in this case

No, this is absolutely wrong. This is only a case of domestic violence if you can prove that JY committed the crime. And you cannot.

jduge stephens understands the facts in this case better than anyone,

No, the killer or killers understand the facts in the case better than anyone.

and no one else had the motive means or opportunity to premeditate this crime other tban jason young.

It has not been established that this is premeditated, that is only a supposition. And there are many many people that had the means and the motive to break into a home and kill the homeowner.

anyone who feels different is practicly condoning domestic violence or most certainly doesnt know the facts in this case or the evidence.

That is insulting and just plain wrong. And it is an extreme disservice to those that actually take up the cause of domestic violence. The evidence in this case do not support your conclusions.

jason young premeditated tbis crime and is the ONLY person who hated michelle and wanted her gone.

Again, this is your opinion and it is not backed up by facts in the case. The opinion that he wanted her gone is not supported by the evidence. The opinion that he hated her is not supported by the evidence. And even if it was, it does not prove that he killed her.

when a person obliterates a persons face, tbey hate the individual they are very close to the individual and usually are intimate w said Individual.

That is not necessarily true, as has been documented on this very thread. There are many circumstances that result in a crime such as this.

I understand how someone can reasonably come to the conclusion that he could have committed this crime, or that he did commit this crime, but the assertions in this post are simply without basis or flat out wrong.

 

[JusticeFever]

True, the problem is that people are confusing facts with opinion.




<respectfully snipped>


That is not necessarily true, as has been documented on this very thread. There are many circumstances that result in a crime such as this.

I understand how someone can reasonably come to the conclusion that he could have committed this crime, or that he did commit this crime, but the assertions in this post are simply without basis or flat out wrong.

Jason Williford did not know Kathy Taft and he obliterated her in Raleigh, North Carolina.

 

[MyBelle]

only jurors are bound to iupg. not the general public. we do not hv to gv him ANY benefit regarding anything at all. only jurors r bound by this law..

There is no "we." I certainly do not share your opinion. Potential jurors are also bound by this principle. Abiding by it has not impaired my ability to live life.

JMO

 

[minor4th]

So, then they didn't hook up!! Thanks for clearing that up. The only other time that was mentioned was after MM learned the news and she flew in from Florida and all their friends met with Jason on the front porch at MF's house.

Oh sorry - I wasn't thinking "hook up" in that way

 

[oenophile]

Oh sorry - I wasn't thinking "hook up" in that way

No worries, some of us have dirty minds.

 

[Salem]

That might not be a bad idea. However, I think the issue that keeps coming up is what is fact and what is assertion.

For example, it has been asserted that JY never asked how MY died and that he only knew that she was dead, not murdered.

I would be willing to accept that as fact if there was testimony that explicitly states this from a. his family; and b. any person that he talked with that day prior to arriving home. And by explicitly states, I mean that the testimony clearly states that he did not ask these things and that he was not told that she was murdered, NOT testimony that describes other activities and simply omits these.

Well that's the beauty of this type of thread. If it is not linkable - it's not a fact. There has already been a trial (or 2?) on this case so things get convoluted and disorganized. It's no wonder there is so much bickering going on over who said/did what.

Okay I will set up a thread in a bit. First I have to find something to start the first couple of posts off, then it will be up to the members to take care of the thread.

Salem

 

[otto]

We have the most fair justice system in the world. Yes, I would gladly admit nothing would convince me of JY's innocence. I followed this case since the beginning, I've read all notes, transcripts, etc. I read everything regarding the civil suit. I watched both trials each and every day.

But most of all, I listened to the prosecutions case and I feel they had an airtight case based on circumstantial evidence. Yes, circumstantial evidence....strong circumstantial evidence. Each piece of evidence is not viewed entirely on its own......it is when all the pieces of circumstantial evidence is put together, it forms a very, very strong circle of guilt.

As some have said "Just how unlucky can one guy be?" It would be interesting to know exactly how many of JY's friends, coworkers, aquaintances, etc consider him innocent at this point???? Suffice it to say, I'd bet money on the number being way, way low.....

There are many people that have followed this case from the beginning, and there are several different opinions about the guilt or innocence of the suspect. Following the case from the beginning doesn't really mean anything in terms of "being in the know".

It's true that the evidence must be viewed in its totality, but it is important that the circumstantial evidence that is weighed actually implicates the suspect. In this case, one piece of circumstantial evidence is a camera that was moved. That camera cannot be connected to Jason. If Jason was going to move cameras to hide his movements, he should have moved all the cameras between the back door and his fourth floor room, but that didn't happen. Therefore, the moved camera isn't evidence of anything. Another piece of circumstantial evidence is a propped open door. We know that Jason had no reason to prop open the door because the door was unlocked at the time that he could have returned from a round trip home. Therefore, the propped door isn't evidence of anything. Now, we have two pieces of circumstantial evidence that don't exits. Next, we have the very questionable and coached testimony from the woman that has severe memory problems. I think we can eliminate that piece of circumstantial evidence. All of a sudden, there's very little in terms of circumstantial evidence. The dripping hose certainly doesn't mean anything. Evidence of the hotel room door being securely closed suggests that Jason was asleep in the room, but the prosecution implies that this is circumstantial evidence because the man that left the newspaper and the receipt was wrong when he said that the door was securely closed. In this case, it's simply incredulous that the prosecution argues that up is down. The door was closed. A witness testified that it was closed, yet the prosecution fabricates the argument that the door was not closed.

I don't think this is about Jason being "unlucky" but about a prosecutor that really wants to climb the corporate ladder and who is inclined to make connections that simply don't exist.

 

[sunshine05]

There are many people that have followed this case from the beginning, and there are several different opinions about the guilt or innocence of the suspect. Following the case from the beginning doesn't really mean anything in terms of "being in the know".

It's true that the evidence must be viewed in its totality, but it is important that the circumstantial evidence that is weighed actually implicates the suspect. In this case, one piece of circumstantial evidence is a camera that was moved. That camera cannot be connected to Jason. If Jason was going to move cameras to hide his movements, he should have moved all the cameras between the back door and his fourth floor room, but that didn't happen. Therefore, the moved camera isn't evidence of anything. Another piece of circumstantial evidence is a propped open door. We know that Jason had no reason to prop open the door because the door was unlocked at the time that he could have returned from a round trip home. Therefore, the propped door isn't evidence of anything. Now, we have two pieces of circumstantial evidence that don't exits. Next, we have the very questionable and coached testimony from the woman that has severe memory problems. I think we can eliminate that piece of circumstantial evidence. All of a sudden, there's very little in terms of circumstantial evidence. The dripping hose certainly doesn't mean anything. Evidence of the hotel room door being securely closed suggests that Jason was asleep in the room, but the prosecution implies that this is circumstantial evidence because the man that left the newspaper and the receipt was wrong when he said that the door was securely closed. In this case, it's simply incredulous that the prosecution argues that up is down. The door was closed. A witness testified that it was closed, yet the prosecution fabricates the argument that the door was not closed.

I don't think this is about Jason being "unlucky" but about a prosecutor that really wants to climb the corporate ladder and who is inclined to make connections that simply don't exist.

Excellent post, otto. Circumstantial evidence must be fact based and must clearly implicate the accused and in this case it simply does not.

We must consider the CE that points away from guilt - such as the 3 witnesses who saw a light colored SUV in the driveway between 3:30-6AM or the gas mileage being consistent with the business trip alone.

The State didn't even come close to proving guilt.

 

[otto]

Excellent post, otto. Circumstantial evidence must be fact based and must clearly implicate the accused and in this case it simply does not.

We must consider the CE that points away from guilt - such as the 3 witnesses who saw a light colored SUV in the driveway between 3:30-6AM or the gas mileage being consistent with the business trip alone.

The State didn't even come close to proving guilt.

When we have irregularities in the circumstantial evidence, such as:

• the missing photo line-up,
• testimony from an eye witness with severe memory problems being accepted, and
• eye witness testimony from a hotel employee being rejected,

then the circumstantial evidence argument is put into question.

 

[Lucylu7]

Sorry,haven't had time to read all of this thread,so I'm just butting in,but does anyone know when this retrial is happening?Thanks.I have followed this case from the beginning (I am definitely in the Jason is guilty camp,by the way),but have not had time to keep up with things lately,just too busy with real life.But I would love to watch this trial,hopefully it's livestreamed again?

 

[otto]

Sorry,haven't had time to read all of this thread,so I'm just butting in,but does anyone know when this retrial is happening?Thanks.I have followed this case from the beginning (I am definitely in the Jason is guilty camp,by the way),but have not had time to keep up with things lately,just too busy with real life.But I would love to watch this trial,hopefully it's livestreamed again?

I have no idea when the trial will be. We're still waiting for the re-trial of Michael Peterson, and isn't Brad Cooper ahead as well? So many problems with trial judges, forensic lab positions, and collusion between prosecutors and investigators have resulted in a review of trial practices in NC.

 

[tarheellvr]

There are many people that have followed this case from the beginning, and there are several different opinions about the guilt or innocence of the suspect. Following the case from the beginning doesn't really mean anything in terms of "being in the know".

It's true that the evidence must be viewed in its totality, but it is important that the circumstantial evidence that is weighed actually implicates the suspect. In this case, one piece of circumstantial evidence is a camera that was moved. That camera cannot be connected to Jason. If Jason was going to move cameras to hide his movements, he should have moved all the cameras between the back door and his fourth floor room, but that didn't happen. Therefore, the moved camera isn't evidence of anything. Another piece of circumstantial evidence is a propped open door. We know that Jason had no reason to prop open the door because the door was unlocked at the time that he could have returned from a round trip home. Therefore, the propped door isn't evidence of anything. Now, we have two pieces of circumstantial evidence that don't exits. Next, we have the very questionable and coached testimony from the woman that has severe memory problems. I think we can eliminate that piece of circumstantial evidence. All of a sudden, there's very little in terms of circumstantial evidence. The dripping hose certainly doesn't mean anything. Evidence of the hotel room door being securely closed suggests that Jason was asleep in the room, but the prosecution implies that this is circumstantial evidence because the man that left the newspaper and the receipt was wrong when he said that the door was securely closed. In this case, it's simply incredulous that the prosecution argues that up is down. The door was closed. A witness testified that it was closed, yet the prosecution fabricates the argument that the door was not closed.

I don't think this is about Jason being "unlucky" but about a prosecutor that really wants to climb the corporate ladder and who is inclined to make connections that simply don't exist.

You're right JY wasn't lucky at all.......he was arrested and convicted of slaughtering his wife and unborn son. His plan didn't quite work the way he thought it would.

Obviously no purpose is served going back and forth with his innocence versus his guilt. Like I will never change my mind, there are some who profess his innocence and will never change theirs.

But to sit here and say the prosecution fabricated arguments/evidence is ludicrous. Also bringing Gracie and her health issues into your cry for innocence is low. You love to speak of her impacted memory yet she was able to run a store during her shift, not an easy task for someone with memory impairment. She also remembered exactly which pump JY used, exactly how he paid and left the change, exactly how he cussed her out, exctly what he drove. For someone who is as you and others describe her, I think Gracie did very, very well!

You are very wrong as there IS much circumstantial evidence as I, myself, and others have posted here over and over. It cannot, did not, and will not be ignored. You will never "talk" it away, you will never change it. You never will erase it....never.

<modsnip>

 

[MyBelle]

I have no idea when the trial will be. We're still waiting for the re-trial of Michael Peterson, and isn't Brad Cooper ahead as well? So many problems with trial judges, forensic lab positions, and collusion between prosecutors and investigators have resulted in a review of trial practices in NC.

BBM. ITA. I think this is what has attracted me back to this case. And can anyone forget the debacle of the Duke LaX case? Something is seriously amiss in NC, particularly that region. The entire system seems to be toxic.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Excellent post, otto. Circumstantial evidence must be fact based and must clearly implicate the accused and in this case it simply does not.

We must consider the CE that points away from guilt - such as the 3 witnesses who saw a light colored SUV in the driveway between 3:30-6AM or the gas mileage being consistent with the business trip alone.

The State didn't even come close to proving guilt.

No, the didn't. They seemed to totally ignore the fact that all of the physical evidence pointed to two people, not Jason.

JMO

 

[JusticeFever]

There are many people that have followed this case from the beginning, and there are several different opinions about the guilt or innocence of the suspect. Following the case from the beginning doesn't really mean anything in terms of "being in the know".

It's true that the evidence must be viewed in its totality, but it is important that the circumstantial evidence that is weighed actually implicates the suspect. In this case, one piece of circumstantial evidence is a camera that was moved. That camera cannot be connected to Jason. If Jason was going to move cameras to hide his movements, he should have moved all the cameras between the back door and his fourth floor room, but that didn't happen. Therefore, the moved camera isn't evidence of anything. Another piece of circumstantial evidence is a propped open door. We know that Jason had no reason to prop open the door because the door was unlocked at the time that he could have returned from a round trip home. Therefore, the propped door isn't evidence of anything. Now, we have two pieces of circumstantial evidence that don't exits. Next, we have the very questionable and coached testimony from the woman that has severe memory problems. I think we can eliminate that piece of circumstantial evidence. All of a sudden, there's very little in terms of circumstantial evidence. The dripping hose certainly doesn't mean anything. Evidence of the hotel room door being securely closed suggests that Jason was asleep in the room, but the prosecution implies that this is circumstantial evidence because the man that left the newspaper and the receipt was wrong when he said that the door was securely closed. In this case, it's simply incredulous that the prosecution argues that up is down. The door was closed. A witness testified that it was closed, yet the prosecution fabricates the argument that the door was not closed.

I don't think this is about Jason being "unlucky" but about a prosecutor that really wants to climb the corporate ladder and who is inclined to make connections that simply don't exist.

Thank you, Otto!

 

[JusticeFever]

I have no idea when the trial will be. We're still waiting for the re-trial of Michael Peterson, and isn't Brad Cooper ahead as well? So many problems with trial judges, forensic lab positions, and collusion between prosecutors and investigators have resulted in a review of trial practices in NC.

Yes, Jason's trial would be the last of the 3, should this be the way it all goes. Cooper has already been transferred from prison and is currently waiting in jail for a trial date, and Peterson is out on house arrest.

 

[Landonsmom02]

That might not be a bad idea. However, I think the issue that keeps coming up is what is fact and what is assertion.

For example, it has been asserted that JY never asked how MY died and that he only knew that she was dead, not murdered.

I would be willing to accept that as fact if there was testimony that explicitly states this from a. his family; and b. any person that he talked with that day prior to arriving home. And by explicitly states, I mean that the testimony clearly states that he did not ask these things and that he was not told that she was murdered, NOT testimony that describes other activities and simply omits these.

It was in testimony that when LEO phoned him he never inquired TO POLICE about how/what happened to MY or asked how CY was.

 

[Landonsmom02]

An officer testifying to this does not even remotely make it fact. At that point it is hearsay, and LE has an incentive to fit what he/she says to the narrative that he/she is attempting to promote.

So testimony isn't fact?? When they are sworn in under oath? So we are not to believe everything JY said then.....since his sworn oath isn't fact????

 

[Landonsmom02]

Excellent post, otto. Circumstantial evidence must be fact based and must clearly implicate the accused and in this case it simply does not.

We must consider the CE that points away from guilt - such as the 3 witnesses who saw a light colored SUV in the driveway between 3:30-6AM or the gas mileage being consistent with the business trip alone.

The State didn't even come close to proving guilt.

BBM

I love how the light colored SUV is never pointed toward JY when he drove a white ford exployer