Jason Young to get new trial #2

[sunshine05]

I'm pretty sure that there was testimony about blood on the carpet between the master bedroom and the bathroom. That stood out for me because it refuted all the claims about there being no blood on the hallway carpet.

None of it was CY's footprints. I believe there was some blood in the bedroom but larger prints and scattered. Not a trail to the bathroom.

 

[sunshine05]

For those who are now arguing that CY wasn't cleaned up at all and that the blood simply "wore off"....keep in mind that Jason was convicted partially based on the fact that, according to the jury foreman "No one would have cleaned up the child but JY." It was the State's assertion that she was cleaned up and of course the defense couldn't argue with that as it's quite clear based on the amount of blood that would have been on her hands and feet and pajamas that an adult cleaned her up. I will continue to believe that it's not logical for a child to be cleaned up and to then remain clean for 10+ hours alone in that house, especially since her doll was found next to her mother.

 

[otto]

The hallway, and carpet where blood was found, runs from the master bedroom, past the bathroom, to the child's bedroom, so that tells me that there was blood on the carpet leading from the master bedroom to the bathroom and then again to the child's bedroom. That contradicts any theory about the child being carried to the bathroom.

"The warrants also question Cassidy's whereabouts during the crime. According to the warrants, bloody child size footprints were found on the floor of Cassidy's bathroom. Investigators also found blood on the carpet between the room Michelle Young was found murdered in and Cassidy's bedroom."

http://abc11.com/archive/6540109/

From the same article, here's the part that is actually illogical:

"In the warrants, they say because of the bloody footprints in Cassidy's bathroom, it's "logical" to conclude that the child was carried from the murder scene to her bathroom."

That is, there is blood on the carpet between the master bedroom and the child's bedroom (meaning down the hall that passes by the bathroom). The warrants then claim that although there is blood in the hallway from the master bedroom to the bathroom, the child must have been carried to the bathroom ... completely illogical.

 

[otto]

None of it was CY's footprints. I believe there was some blood in the bedroom but larger prints and scattered. Not a trail to the bathroom.

There was blood on the carpet in the hallway between the master bedroom and the child's bedroom, and it is not possible to go between the two rooms without passing the bathroom. I don't recall any conclusions about what caused the blood on the carpet.

Here's an accurate drawing of the second floor floorplan.
http://frictionpowered.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/floorplan2.jpg

 

[MyBelle]

I agree with all of this, and it simply doesn't make sense that she was cleaned up at all. It is much more reasonable that she slept through the entire thing, and only discovered the body later upon waking up. And that the blood evidence is consistent with her actions of the morning. Specifically, there was evidence of blood on her feet, blood in her shoes, blood on her PJ's. etc.



What doesn't follow is the conclusion that JY did this. The rest of this assumes that JY committed the crime. But the hypothesis in the rest of the post doesn't lead to JY, nor does it necessarily lead it away from JY. It must be assumed that he did it first, then attempt to fit the evidence into that narrative. Thus this last part is invalidated if you haven't already decided his guilt (which granted you already did in a previous post).

The pajamas being washed and placed back on her is the only reasonable explanation for the chemical detection of blood that saturated through the seat of her pj pants. The blood was not visible. How else did the blood "disappear" from visibility if they were not washed?

 

[otto]

The sheets on the bed were bloody.

"In the bed, Galloway saw blood on the sheets, comforter and pillow."


Read more at http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10721740/#p2DrO5Wq0ruB3hPP.99

 

[otto]

The pajamas being washed and placed back on her is the only reasonable explanation for the chemical detection of blood that saturated through the seat of her pj pants. The blood was not visible. How else did the blood "disappear" from visibility if they were not washed?

I don't think that the prosecution should be allowed to testify about whether the child had blood on her, or whether it appeared that she had been washed clean. Investigators are required to gather evidence and present that in court during trial. Regarding the child, it appears that they did not gather any evidence, yet they want to testify that she was free of blood when she was found. For me, that's like claiming that there were bloody footprints in the bathroom, but failing to present photos of that evidence. They did photograph the bloody prints in the bathroom (although they had to return to the scene months later to attribute a scale, or size, to the prints), but they did not photograph the child. Therefore, any remarks about the condition of the child when she was found should be excluded. Instead, I think the defense should focus on the blood evidence on the carpet that exists between the master bedroom and the child's bedroom. That suggests to me that the child walked from the master bedroom, down the hall to the bathroom, and to her own bedroom.

 

[oenophile]

Re: staging --- I don't think anyone random staged the prints. I think MF did. She was sure to mention them in the 911 call even though it does nothing to help her sister. Could she even have seen them walking up the stairwell as she claims? There are no windows in that bathroom so unless the light was on, it would have probably been too dark to see them.

I watched MF's testimony from the second trial today. There is nothing in her testimony that makes me doubt her credibility. Her recollection of the events when she found MY are detailed in a way that is 100% more aligned with someone discovering the body for the first time. While I do think it is worthwhile to examine potential alternate suspects, I really think that the accusations against MF are unfounded and are far less credible than accusations against JY.

In my opinion, and in all due respect, suggestions that MF may have committed this seem to be more in the effort to exonerate JY than to actually apply the evidence and testimony to finding the killer. And I do not believe from the evidence that JY or MF committed this crime.

 

[oenophile]

For those who are now arguing that CY wasn't cleaned up at all and that the blood simply "wore off"....keep in mind that Jason was convicted partially based on the fact that, according to the jury foreman "No one would have cleaned up the child but JY." It was the State's assertion that she was cleaned up and of course the defense couldn't argue with that as it's quite clear based on the amount of blood that would have been on her hands and feet and pajamas that an adult cleaned her up. I will continue to believe that it's not logical for a child to be cleaned up and to then remain clean for 10+ hours alone in that house, especially since her doll was found next to her mother.

Even though it is the state's assertion that an adult cleaned her, it remains an assertion. There are many possible explanations of the facts. The facts remain that a) CY was found with blood on her feet, according to MF; b) there was blood on her PJ's; c) there was blood on CY's shoes; d) CY never told anyone, that I recall, that she was cleaned by anyone.

 

[otto]

I watched MF's testimony from the second trial today. There is nothing in her testimony that makes me doubt her credibility. Her recollection of the events when she found MY are detailed in a way that is 100% more aligned with someone discovering the body for the first time. While I do think it is worthwhile to examine potential alternate suspects, I really think that the accusations against MF are unfounded and are far less credible than accusations against JY.

In my opinion, and in all due respect, suggestions that MF may have committed this seem to be more in the effort to exonerate JY than to actually apply the evidence and testimony to finding the killer. And I do not believe from the evidence that JY or MF committed this crime.

Investigators need to return to the beginning of the investigation where Michelle's guest stated that someone was outside the house while she was visiting. That was not Jason. That should be the starting point. It seems fairly clear that the door between the garage and the house was unlocked, and we know that the garage overhead door was partially open. It was easy for someone to enter the house through the garage, to wander around the main floor, and to use either the stairs by the front entrance, or the stairs leading to the bonus room, to quietly access the second floor.

 

[oenophile]

The pajamas being washed and placed back on her is the only reasonable explanation for the chemical detection of blood that saturated through the seat of her pj pants. The blood was not visible. How else did the blood "disappear" from visibility if they were not washed?

How about an alternate explanation: she took off her pajamas when she removed her diaper, got blood on her then, then put the pajamas back on.

Washing is not the only reasonable explanation. In fact, I would suggest it is the least reasonable explanation because of the amount of time and effort that would be required for no apparent benefit to the killer.

 

[Grammy Jean]

For those who are now arguing that CY wasn't cleaned up at all and that the blood simply "wore off"....keep in mind that Jason was convicted partially based on the fact that, according to the jury foreman "No one would have cleaned up the child but JY." It was the State's assertion that she was cleaned up and of course the defense couldn't argue with that as it's quite clear based on the amount of blood that would have been on her hands and feet and pajamas that an adult cleaned her up. I will continue to believe that it's not logical for a child to be cleaned up and to then remain clean for 10+ hours alone in that house, especially since her doll was found next to her mother.

If CY slept for most of those hours then it could be logical.

 

[otto]

Even though it is the state's assertion that an adult cleaned her, it remains an assertion. There are many possible explanations of the facts. The facts remain that a) CY was found with blood on her feet, according to MF; b) there was blood on her PJ's; c) there was blood on CY's shoes; d) CY never told anyone, that I recall, that she was cleaned by anyone.

"No blood on the child" is an assertion apparently without any evidence. It's a "take my word for it" situation. I don't think a "take my word for it" statement should be admissable in a murder trial.

 

[MyBelle]

How about an alternate explanation: she took off her pajamas when she removed her diaper, got blood on her then, then put the pajamas back on.

Washing is not the only reasonable explanation. In fact, I would suggest it is the least reasonable explanation because of the amount of time and effort that would be required for no apparent benefit to the killer.

The testimony was that the blood had saturated through but was not visible. If washing isn't a reasonable explanation to you, then what other way was the blood removed from visibility?

 

[MyBelle]

"No blood on the child" is an assertion apparently without any evidence. It's a "take my word for it" situation. I don't think a "take my word for it" statement should be admissable in a murder trial.

The child was seen by first responders. Their testimony as to what they observed is evidence.

 

[MyBelle]

I watched MF's testimony from the second trial today. There is nothing in her testimony that makes me doubt her credibility. Her recollection of the events when she found MY are detailed in a way that is 100% more aligned with someone discovering the body for the first time. While I do think it is worthwhile to examine potential alternate suspects, I really think that the accusations against MF are unfounded and are far less credible than accusations against JY.

In my opinion, and in all due respect, suggestions that MF may have committed this seem to be more in the effort to exonerate JY than to actually apply the evidence and testimony to finding the killer. And I do not believe from the evidence that JY or MF committed this crime.

With all due respect, the evidence does not fit with Jason because of his alibi, the timeline, the gas mileage, the witnesses who saw activity at the house, the condition of CY, etc., etc. I don't find Gracie's testimony credible but I don't believe she murdered Michelle.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

The testimony was that the blood had saturated through but was not visible. If washing isn't a reasonable explanation to you, then what other way was the blood removed from visibility?

If you show me an expert that says the only way that the blood could be on the PJ's but not clearly visible is through washing, then I think it has credibility. Otherwise, I think there is too much reading into the "not visible" and "saturated through" comments.

It simply defies logic that anyone would a) spend the time to wash and dry the PJ's (a two hour process); and b) have a reason to do so.

There is no benefit to the killer, whoever it is, to wash and dry the PJ's and place them back on CY. But there are tons of drawbacks, including having to hang around the location of a murder for two hours, risk leaving more evidence, etc. I think it is rather incredulous to come to the conclusion that the PJ's must have been laundered when there are far more reasonable conclusions.

 

[oenophile]

With all due respect, the evidence does not fit with Jason because of his alibi, the timeline, the gas mileage, the witnesses who saw activity at the house, the condition of CY, etc., etc. I don't find Gracie's testimony credible but I don't believe she murdered Michelle.

JMO

I agree, with the exception of the statement around CY (I don't think the condition of CY has any bearing on JY).

(and I don't think anyone accused Gracie of murdering MY)

 

[oenophile]

The child was seen by first responders. Their testimony as to what they observed is evidence.

And MF (who actually cared for CY) testified that she saw blood on CY's toes.

 

[MyBelle]

For those who are now arguing that CY wasn't cleaned up at all and that the blood simply "wore off"....keep in mind that Jason was convicted partially based on the fact that, according to the jury foreman "No one would have cleaned up the child but JY." It was the State's assertion that she was cleaned up and of course the defense couldn't argue with that as it's quite clear based on the amount of blood that would have been on her hands and feet and pajamas that an adult cleaned her up. I will continue to believe that it's not logical for a child to be cleaned up and to then remain clean for 10+ hours alone in that house, especially since her doll was found next to her mother.

I agree. There is also the fact that her bathroom was a bloody mess and she had access to it for 10+ hours. The state can't ignore the fact that the blood on the SEAT of her pajamas was saturated on both sides but was no longer visible. There is no other reasonable explanation for it.

JMO