Jason Young to get new trial #2

[MyBelle]

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

The child's bloody socks were found in her bathroom and her bloody footprints were found in the master bedroom so it is no surprise blood would be on her toes. The issue is the blood was later found on her clothing during chemical analysis. It was not visible.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

If there is a more reasonable conclusion how blood disappeared from visibility, then please share it.

I'm not sure why logic needs to apply to as to the reason a killer would wash the child's clothes and put back on her. Are killers logical people? Witnesses placed vehicles and activity at the house that appears to be hours after Michelle's murder. That timeline excludes Jason Young.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

If there is a more reasonable conclusion how blood disappeared from visibility, then please share it.

I'm not sure why logic needs to apply to as to the reason a killer would wash the child's clothes and put back on her. Are killers logical people? Witnesses placed vehicles and activity at the house that appears to be hours after Michelle's murder. That timeline excludes Jason Young.

JMO

Not sure if you realize, but I believe JY to be innocent. But that doesn't change the evidence.

I'm saying that the blood didn't disappear from visibility, but that it is reasonable that the amount of blood detected on the PJ's may not have been clearly visible to a casual observer, particularly since the PJ's were pink (which is not that far off from red).

Here's an explanation: CY took off her PJ's and her diaper, then got blood on her hands, wiped the blood on her bottom, then put her PJ's back on. We know that her PJ's were removed and put back on. And it is a reasonable explanation for the state of the PJ's. No one said that the PJ's were blood-soaked with invisible blood, just that there was blood discovered on them.

 

[MyBelle]

Not sure if you realize, but I believe JY to be innocent. But that doesn't change the evidence.

I'm saying that the blood didn't disappear from visibility, but that it is reasonable that the amount of blood detected on the PJ's may not have been clearly visible to a casual observer, particularly since the PJ's were pink (which is not that far off from red).

Here's an explanation: CY took off her PJ's and her diaper, then got blood on her hands, wiped the blood on her bottom, then put her PJ's back on. We know that her PJ's were removed and put back on. And it is a reasonable explanation for the state of the PJ's. No one said that the PJ's were blood-soaked with invisible blood, just that there was blood discovered on them.

Actually, Agent Holley did testify the blood had saturated both sides of the pajamas and was no longer visible. According to serologist Holley's testimony, the blood was not found until he performed a chemical analysis of the pj's. My opinion is based on his testimony, which is evidence.

 

[oenophile]

Actually, Agent Holley did testify the blood had saturated both sides of the pajamas and was no longer visible. According to serologist Holley's testimony, the blood was not found until he performed a chemical analysis of the pj's. My opinion is based on his testimony, which is evidence.

Did Holley state that the explanation for this is that the pajamas must have been washed? The question really is, what is a reasonable explanation for the condition of the pajamas. And what does it mean to be "saturated". (Did he actually use the word "saturated"?)

 

[sunshine05]

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.

Unless, if the killer was truly watching the house as Shelly sensed that night, they would have known that there was a person who knew what she had been wearing so maybe they wanted to make sure she had the same clothing on as she was unable to dress herself.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

I'm certain there is testimony that CY's footprints were not in the hallway and that is why it is assumed she was picked up and carried to the bathroom. I will find it and post a link here tomorrow.

 

[sunshine05]

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

Yes, but none on the side of the bed where C. was allegedly found.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

Multiple people testified that the child had no blood on her - Meredith, the first responders and the police.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

This is the first time anyone is suggesting that no one cleaned the child. I'm sorry but that is going to be a tough thing to convince any jury of. But really let's say that she did clean herself up somehow, wiped her hands and feet on the sheets and there was no more blood --- does that get us closer to figuring out who did this to MY? The only thing it suggests to me is that if JY did this he for no known reason chose to let her have the run of the house and by some miracle, she got into the blood and then she removed it all from her body and got into the other side of the master bed (where no blood was found) and that she also removed her diaper (even though there is no diaper on the floor) and somehow dressed herself, having never done that before. I think there is abundant CE pointing to someone caring for her. She wasn't hungry, thirsty, crying, wet, soiled or bloody and was calm as can be.

 

[oenophile]

Multiple people testified that the child had no blood on her - Meredith, the first responders and the police.

This is factually incorrect. MF testified that CY had blood on her feet.

 

[Salem]

The sister is not a suspect/POI here. Leave her be, or provide a link.

We are victim friendly and she is considered a victim of this crime.

Salem

 

[otto]

This is factually incorrect. MF testified that CY had blood on her feet.

It seems to me that the belief that the child was washed and given clean clothes is only good for the prosecution, but at the same time it is completely illogical. That is, if Jason drove to the hotel, then home again to commit murder, he would not have any extra time to spend doing laundry.

Jason's time line is from 12:01AM to 6:35AM (camera unplugged). The one way trip is 170M and driving time is 2h45m. Without stopping, total travel time is 5h30m. Investigators said that the murder took about 10 minutes. The stop for gas took about 10 minutes. Now he has used up 5h50m. He needed time to change or get a weapon prior to the murder - another 10 minutes ... now we're at 6 hours. That leaves 35 minutes for Jason to calm down after the violent 10 minute long murder, shower, change, get what he needed from the closet, leave two sets of shoe sizes on a pillow, and look after the child.

If Jason needed 20 minutes to get his bearings, shower, dress, and stage the scene, we are at 6h20m. That leaves 15 minutes to wash up in the backyard with the hose, overdose the child with adult cough medication, remove the diaper, block the child in the bathroom (where she left smeared footprints on the interior of the door), wash her clothes, dry her clothes,, put her in an unusual pair of shoes, put her in someone's bed ... and stage the scene.

Not everything that is being alleged could have happened in the allotted time. Only a family member would look after the child. Other than the father, there are no familial suspects ... so if someone looked after the child, it was the father, and therefore the father is the murderer. If the child was not looked after, then the murderer could be more random.

If the child had blood on her toes and on her pyjamas, then she was not cleaned up. Therefore, it is not necessarily true that her father is the only possible suspect.

 

[otto]

This is the first time anyone is suggesting that no one cleaned the child. I'm sorry but that is going to be a tough thing to convince any jury of. But really let's say that she did clean herself up somehow, wiped her hands and feet on the sheets and there was no more blood --- does that get us closer to figuring out who did this to MY? The only thing it suggests to me is that if JY did this he for no known reason chose to let her have the run of the house and by some miracle, she got into the blood and then she removed it all from her body and got into the other side of the master bed (where no blood was found) and that she also removed her diaper (even though there is no diaper on the floor) and somehow dressed herself, having never done that before. I think there is abundant CE pointing to someone caring for her. She wasn't hungry, thirsty, crying, wet, soiled or bloody and was calm as can be.

Why would it be difficult to convince the jury that the child woke up in the morning to discover the murder? It does get us closer to eliminating Jason if the child was not cleaned up ... because most people believe that only a family member would stop to clean up and care for a child after murdering her mother. The only family member that is a suspect is Jason, so if the child was cleaned, Jason murdered Michelle. If the child woke up in the morning, stepped in blood, went to the bathroom, left blood prints and smears, went to her bedroom, put on an unusual pair of shoes, went to the master bedroom to wait for her father on his side of the bed, it is consistent with the evidence, but it doesn't require that the child be cleaned and doesn't place Jason as the most likely suspect.

There is evidence of blood on the pyjamas, there is evidence of blood on the child's toes, and there is evidence of someone leaving blood on the carpet from the master bedroom, past the bathroom, to the child's bedroom. If the child wore her unusual shoes from her bedroom to the master bedroom, then there would only be blood tracks from the master bedroom to the child's bedroom ... which is a fact of the case.

Jason is eliminated if the pyjamas were laundered because the timeline does not give him time to do this. Jason did not have time to do laundry. In fact, it is most likely that no laundry was done ... unless we should believe that a random thief and murderer stops to look after his victim's children. That doesn't happen.

 

[otto]

The prosecution has a circular argument: the child was cleaned, only a family member would do this, the father is the preferred suspect, the father is guilty, the timeline doesn't allow for the father to launder, but the child was cleaned, only a family member would do this ... and so on.

The father did not have time to do laundry. It is highly likely that a random murderer did not take time after looting the jewelry box and murdering the homeowner to look after the child's diaper and comfort. Therefore, it is more likely that the child was not cleaned. She walked from the master bedroom to the bathroom, and I suspect that the prints leading from the bathroom to the child's bedroom are fainter as they get closer to the her bedroom. Blood prints do become more faint and wear off due to walking on carpet. Carpet is the worst surface for obtaining clear prints. She put on a pair of shoes, and returned to her parent's bedroom without leaving any prints. Blood evidence was found in her shoes ... also consistent with the scenario where the child woke up in the morning and wore an odd pair of shoes in her parents bed ... alone with a dog that was too scared to come upstairs. Perhaps that's why she wore shoes ... she didn't want to get more blood on her feet when she placed her doll with her mother.

If the child was not cleaned, Jason is still a suspect, but he is no longer the most likely suspect. If the child was cleaned, Jason is the most likely suspect.

 

[MyBelle]

Did Holley state that the explanation for this is that the pajamas must have been washed? The question really is, what is a reasonable explanation for the condition of the pajamas. And what does it mean to be "saturated". (Did he actually use the word "saturated"?)

ADA Holt used the term "penetrated" and Agent Holley responded with "soaked."
Holley took photos of the pants both right side out and inside out, State's Evidence #159, 160.

If you think there is a more reasonable explanation for blood not visible until a chemical was applied, that's great.

I will continue to believe the clothes were washed and placed back onto the child.

Here's Special Agent Russ Holley's testimony, Day 8, Parts 4 & 5:

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/asset_gallery/10730959/

 

[MyBelle]

It seems to me that the belief that the child was washed and given clean clothes is only good for the prosecution, but at the same time it is completely illogical. That is, if Jason drove to the hotel, then home again to commit murder, he would not have any extra time to spend doing laundry.

Jason's time line is from 12:01AM to 6:35AM (camera unplugged). The one way trip is 170M and driving time is 2h45m. Without stopping, total travel time is 5h30m. Investigators said that the murder took about 10 minutes. The stop for gas took about 10 minutes. Now he has used up 5h50m. He needed time to change or get a weapon prior to the murder - another 10 minutes ... now we're at 6 hours. That leaves 35 minutes for Jason to calm down after the violent 10 minute long murder, shower, change, get what he needed from the closet, leave two sets of shoe sizes on a pillow, and look after the child.

If Jason needed 20 minutes to get his bearings, shower, dress, and stage the scene, we are at 6h20m. That leaves 15 minutes to wash up in the backyard with the hose, overdose the child with adult cough medication, remove the diaper, block the child in the bathroom (where she left smeared footprints on the interior of the door), wash her clothes, dry her clothes,, put her in an unusual pair of shoes, put her in someone's bed ... and stage the scene.

Not everything that is being alleged could have happened in the allotted time. Only a family member would look after the child. Other than the father, there are no familial suspects ... so if someone looked after the child, it was the father, and therefore the father is the murderer. If the child was not looked after, then the murderer could be more random.

If the child had blood on her toes and on her pyjamas, then she was not cleaned up. Therefore, it is not necessarily true that her father is the only possible suspect.

BBM. A possibility that LE seems to have completely overlooked is that Jason may have had a stalker, i.e., someone who wanted to take Michelle's place as his wife and mother to the child they knew Jason adored.

It wasn't a random murder, imo.

 

[otto]

ADA Holt used the term "penetrated" and Agent Holley responded with "soaked."
Holley took photos of the pants both right side out and inside out, State's Evidence #159, 160.

If you think there is a more reasonable explanation for blood not visible until a chemical was applied, that's great.

I will continue to believe the clothes were washed and placed back onto the child.

Here's Special Agent Russ Holley's testimony, Day 8, Parts 4 & 5:

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/asset_gallery/10730959/

Penetrated and soaked doesn't mean that the pyjamas were washed. It means that the blood was soaked through the fabric to the child's skin (apparently there are no photos). Blood not visible until after blood presence testing could mean that the blood soaked fabric wore off with the child sitting in several places, similar to bloody footprints on carpet. The child sat in the bathroom (evidence on interior of door), and the child probably sat when she put on her shoes. Was there any blood evidence in front of the child's closet and, if so, how does it relate to the blood evidence between the bathroom and the child's bedroom?

Family members are ruled out except for Jason. Who, other than a family member, would take time after looting the jewelry box and murdering the home owner to comfort a two year old child? I think the child woke up the morning similar to the murder of Christa Worthington.

 

[MyBelle]

Penetrated and soaked doesn't mean that the pyjamas were washed. It means that the blood was soaked through the fabric to the child's skin (apparently there are no photos). Blood not visible until after blood presence testing could mean that the blood soaked fabric wore off with the child sitting in several places, similar to bloody footprints on carpet. The child sat in the bathroom (evidence on interior of door), and the child probably sat when she put on her shoes. Was there any blood evidence in front of the child's closet and, if so, how does it relate to the blood evidence between the bathroom and the child's bedroom?

Family members are ruled out except for Jason. Who, other than a family member, would take time after looting the jewelry box and murdering the home owner to comfort a two year old child? I think the child woke up the morning similar to the murder of Christa Worthington.

I don't know that any family members or anybody else was ever seriously considered a suspect in this case and I think that is one of the reasons the prosecution is now looking at trial #3.

Blood is not going to 'wear off' fabric. It certainly did not "wear off" CY's bloody socks. The testimony by Holley was that her pants fabric was "soaked" on both sides. Blood sometimes will wash out of a fabric or significantly fade if it is laundered before the blood dries. I am not aware of any other way blood magically disappears to the point only a chemical detects it.

Christa Worthington's toddler was found on her mother's body. It is unknown when she awakened that morning.

JMO

 

[otto]

BBM. A possibility that LE seems to have completely overlooked is that Jason may have had a stalker, i.e., someone who wanted to take Michelle's place as his wife and mother to the child they knew Jason adored.

It wasn't a random murder, imo.

Jason may well have had a woman that was very interested in him, like a stalker. It doesn't seem random when the "cleaned child" is part of both guilty and not-guilty opinions, and given the mixed up alliances, it is not the woman that Jason met when he was a camp leader ... the woman whose marriage and life was destroyed by Jason when he swallowed or hid her wedding ring. The only other woman that Jason was involved with was Michelle's sorority friend ... wasn't her name "Michelle" too? Michelle Money? Police apparently threatened her with arrest if she did not stay away from Jason. That's a very interesting problem ... the judge allowed that Jason had an accomplice in jury deliberations.