Jason Young to get new trial #2

[sunshine05]

It's germane to the discussion because it was part of his testimony. You would have to ask him why he deemed it necessary? Why did he testify to it? His long, convoluted, detailed explanation? He must have felt it was necessary?

What if it's the truth? I don't see it as a convoluted explanation at all. Why do you say that he must have felt it was necessary? Are you bothered that he didn't respond with "I don't remember why I stepped out."?

 

[sunshine05]

Let's keep in mind that JY did not speak at all to anyone about his actions that night from the time if the murder until he testified -- at which point he and his attorney had every bit of evidence, witness statements, etc from the police and prosecutors.

When you know all the evidence - you can tailor your testimony to account for every detail.

Yes, he exercised his right to remain silent. So what that he said he went to smoke a cigar? Is there anything that he could have said that would have been believable to those who believe he drove back to Raleigh that night? I really don't understand the significance of the cigar. The State needed to prove he drove to Raleigh when he said he was smoking. They failed to do that. That is the only thing that matters here.

 

[sunshine05]

Well he's been proven guilty once. The jurors and judge have to presume innocence when he goes to trial again, but we don't have to presume innocence for purposes of discussion.

What hearsay from his trial is bothering you?

As an attorney, you know that he is once again innocent until proven guilty. He was convicted but he was never proven guilty. Where is the evidence? There is nothing linking him in any way to this crime.

 

[JusticeFever]

Not such a far out story, after all. Hampton Inn Photos. Photo 34, picture of a trash can with ashtray on top right outside the door Jason walked out of.

Also, if you look at the photos of the rooms, including #421 where Jason stayed, you will see the big locks on the doors and consider how much noise they must make when the door is closed, especially when it is around midnight, and most people, if not all, were in bed.

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

 

[sunshine05]

Because he wanted to be seen at certain points - part of his alibi. But he couldn't afford to have the other cameras showing him not returning to his room and staying there the entire night. IMO

He wanted to be seen leaving to go to Raleigh to murder his wife? That is what the State alleges here. He had no idea when he would have been visible on any of the cameras because they cycle every 14 seconds. What if he was caught just before unplugging the stairwell camera? Busted, alibi is gone. Plus someone's fingerprints are on the camera, not his.

 

[sunshine05]

Sure. He went and grabbed it from under the door or had another one printed after he returned from his murder journey.

How do you know his luggage was still in his room while he was away?

So he went on a bloody rampage, drove 340 miles late night/early morning and just stopped by to grab a receipt. Didn't shower and dress for his business appointment? Or did he take his business attire with him and dressed after hosing off in the backyard? Then he goes to his meeting and nothing out of the ordinary is reported about his demeanor. No sleep.

 

[jova33]

Not such a far out story, after all. Hampton Inn Photos. Photo 34, picture of a trash can with ashtray on top right outside the door Jason walked out of.

Also, if you look at the photos of the rooms, including #421 where Jason stayed, you will see the big locks on the doors and consider how much noise they must make when the door is closed, especially when it is around midnight, and most people, if not all, were in bed.

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

21/36, how stable would that be? Still looks noticeable.

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[Nymeria]

Not such a far out story, after all. Hampton Inn Photos. Photo 34, picture of a trash can with ashtray on top right outside the door Jason walked out of.

Also, if you look at the photos of the rooms, including #421 where Jason stayed, you will see the big locks on the doors and consider how much noise they must make when the door is closed, especially when it is around midnight, and most people, if not all, were in bed.

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

Was there a cigar butt in the ashtray?

 

[jova33]

Was there a cigar butt in the ashtray?

I don't believe there was, but when did they check and when was it last emptied?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

Ok, for discussion purposes, do you know intimate details of JY and MY's relationship, and the circumstances or events that led up to the murder that we are not privy to? Anything that hasn't already been testified to in court?

Not at all.

 

[minor4th]

Yes, he exercised his right to remain silent. So what that he said he went to smoke a cigar? Is there anything that he could have said that would have been believable to those who believe he drove back to Raleigh that night? I really don't understand the significance of the cigar. The State needed to prove he drove to Raleigh when he said he was smoking. They failed to do that. That is the only thing that matters here.

Oh, I wasn't talking about the cigar. I was just making a general comment about his ability to craft a story after he knows all the evidence against him.

I don't really care about the cigar one way or the other.

If he's innocent and everything he testified about happened exactly the way he stated, it sure would have helped his credibility if he had said all those things before his attorneys received all the evidence.

Waiting until the end of trial - it is hard to conceive of so many quirky coincidences in a matter of 10 hours, all happening to the one guy who will be the obvious suspect when his pregnant wife is murdered.

 

[MyBelle]

Well he's been proven guilty once. The jurors and judge have to presume innocence when he goes to trial again, but we don't have to presume innocence for purposes of discussion.

What hearsay from his trial is bothering you?

He wasn't proved guilty. A jury was allowed to hear prejudicial, inadmissible information.

I prefer to presume innocence and just scroll and roll past those who don't.

JMO

 

[minor4th]

There was a hung jury the first time....in the second trial, the judge allowed third party (hearsay) testimony from the day care worker...completely meant to taint his character to the jury...testimony from friends (again hearsay) of things Michelle said happened..not all witnessed first hand. Maybe you know something the rest of us don't. But our justice system says we are innocent until proven guilty. I've seen a couple of trials lately where this doesn't seem to apply. The hard evidence is not there. There is reasonable doubt.



If JY is guilty, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. I just don't think the State proved their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". I hope they'll go back and investigate further and present a more iron-clad case during the next trial.

I don't think there's reasonable doubt, even without the testimony that should have been excluded. And I am not one to jump on the "guilty" bandwagon right from the start. (Ask most of the posters on the Oscar Pistorius threads).

I think the next trial, the prosecutors will get it right. They've had 2 practice runs to perfect their case, and they have the benefit of JY's own testimony now too. I would not be surprised if there is new and additional evidence that is presented at the third trial.

Having said that, I am really shocked that the prosecutor went into all the questioning of JY about no speaking to police and getting an attorney. And why didn't the defense immediately jump up and make loud and righteous objections? I have never seen anything like if. An accused's right to remain silent and to have an attorney are fundamental and very important constitutional rights - and every attorney KNOWS that you cannot argue to a jury that the exercise if those rights is indicative if guilt. Shame on those prosecutors for going to those ends when it is so predictable that a guilty verdict would be overturned. Vi don't know why they would do it.

 

[minor4th]

The hotel receipt was placed under his door around a time he could not have been there if you want to believe JY was in Raleigh, and a newspaper that was placed on his door handle at a time he could not have been there. And, since there are photos of him coming into the hotel and getting on an elevator with his luggage, and there are no photos of him walking out of the hotel at midnight with his luggage, I am not following your logic. He had to come back to the hotel, you know that, right?
Have you listened to Keith Hicks testimony? Let me find a link.

Yes I know he had to come back - but I don't think he was in his room sleeping all night.

I will go listen to Hicks' testimony and get back with you. Thanks for providing the link.

 

[jova33]

Oh, I wasn't talking about the cigar. I was just making a general comment about his ability to craft a story after he knows all the evidence against him.

I don't really care about the cigar one way or the other.

If he's innocent and everything he testified about happened exactly the way he stated, it sure would have helped his credibility if he had said all those things before his attorneys received all the evidence.

Waiting until the end of trial - it is hard to conceive of so many quirky coincidences in a matter of 10 hours, all happening to the one guy who will be the obvious suspect when his pregnant wife is murdered.

How do you know he didn't tell his attorney before all the evidence came out? His attorney knew the police were gunning for him from the get go, and the police would simply twist anything he said.

Edit: once I told my attorney I wanted to talk to the police and clear my name. My attorney said he wasn't going to recommend that and any attorney that would is an idiot. If you go to the police and say "I was there and this is what happened" the police have you on record saying you were at the scene of the crime and all it takes is someone else saying you did it. You already admitted to being there. You go to police and tell your story and get a detail wrong, police have you on record as lying to them and who's to say you aren't lying about committing the crime.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[sunshine05]

Oh, I wasn't talking about the cigar. I was just making a general comment about his ability to craft a story after he knows all the evidence against him.

I don't really care about the cigar one way or the other.

If he's innocent and everything he testified about happened exactly the way he stated, it sure would have helped his credibility if he had said all those things before his attorneys received all the evidence.

Waiting until the end of trial - it is hard to conceive of so many quirky coincidences in a matter of 10 hours, all happening to the one guy who will be the obvious suspect when his pregnant wife is murdered.

Quirky coincidences that are completely unrelated to JY...from the camera (not his print) to Gracie (she couldn't even describe what he looked like)...what else?

A big coincidence that points to innocence is three separate witnesses describing an SUV at the base of their driveway between 3:30-6AM. (if we want to discuss coincidences)

Also, I don't believe he loses credibility at all for not talking to police. Was it really such a big mystery to them that his key was only swiped once? They couldn't figure this out so they desperately needed his input ASAP? They couldn't fathom that he may have left the door ajar with that metal thing that so many guests use routinely?

 

[tarheellvr]

I am a local and have followed these cases for years. I know a little bit about the law and, never, was hearsay allowed to be entered into the trials of defendants. However, things seem to have changed. The amount of hearsay evidence that was allowed in this case was stricktly to assassinate the character of the accused.

Many of you seem so set on JY's guilt without concrete proof. There is so much reasonable doubt. I am just wondering if you are friends or family that know something the rest of us don't that wasn't admitted at trial?

Our justice system is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". It has become "guilty until proven innocent". We should all be very concerned about this.

I'm a local too and lived close to Michelle when this slaughter took place. I also know a little about the law having come from a family of attorneys and judges......none of which are involved or related to this case. Since I've been close to this case since it's inception, I've also discussed various things with familly members.

Much respect was given to Judge Stephens for his integrity and professionalism. Much respect was given to the trial and the way it was handled by both Judge Stephens and the DA's office. Much respect was given to LE and their handling of this case, especially with JY making himself 110% unavailable. My relatives feel JY is exactly where he should be and feel it is an absolute shame the State even has to deal with him again.

For what it's worth, they also feel we'll have a third trial unless there is a plea which is doubtful he'll even take.

 

[tarheellvr]

According to the FBI report they are, the Tracey Harpster report. Very clearly red flags. Did you read it?

Page 23: http://leb.fbi.gov/2008-pdfs/leb-june-2008

Regarding extraneous information (bloody footprints, sister should be at work, here on a fluke, things don't look like they usually do), that isn't normal when a person needs urgent help for a victim. Normal is "Get someone over here now! Hurry!"

from this same article "Almost twice as many
innocent callers (67 percent) in
this study asked for help for the
victim than did guilty callers
(34 percent).


DISPATCHER: 911 State your emergency

MEREDITH: I need an ambulance. It’s an emergency.

DISPATCHER: What address are you at Ma’am?

MEREDITH: Um Birchleaf…5108 Birchleaf Road

DISPATCHER: Okay and your phone number?

MEREDITH: Oh my God

DISPATCHER: Ma’am, what’s your phone number in case I lose you

MEREDITH: Um…(deleted)…hang on. Let me look at the phone. (deleted)

DISPATCHER: Alright, what’s the problem. Tell me exactly what happened.

MEREDITH: Um…I…I…I think my sister’s dead.


MEREDITH ASKED FOR HELP......IMMEDIATELY!!!

 

[Madeleine74]

One of the reasons MF is pointed to is because I think most people concede this murder was an inside job, done by someone who knew and had a lot of emotion against the victim. 30+ blows to the head was not necessary to disable a sleeping petite woman. That's overkill. No forced entry, no theft of valuables other than MY's ring that was on her hand, maybe a wedding ring of JY, and a drawer in a jewelry box. Allegedly some cash that had been stashed somewhere in JY's closet. Purse/wallet/electronics/other valuables untouched. The toddler child unharmed and had been attended to. No insurance claim was ever filed for what was "stolen."

Since JY cannot be the murderer, for whatever reason, then they are left to try and find someone else to point to since it cannot be JY and obviously was an inside job--meaning the person knew the victim and had access. MF becomes a convenient target because she was close to the victim and was the person to find the victim and call 911. That immediately, in some people's minds, makes her a suspect. Nevermind the fact that MF was called more than once to go over to the Young's house both by JY and his momma to get an "ebay printout" that was printed the night before at the same time as an online map and only the map was taken by the husband. No, that doesn't matter. MF is seen as the perp because it just can't be JY.

And, to add fuel to that bonfire, an eye witness driving by claims to have seen a woman with "bushy hair" in a "soccer mom type van," leaving that driveway at 5:30am that morning. That means the woman had to be MF. The witness cannot be mistaken or have gotten mixed up or saw something on a different morning; no, she has to be correct and therefore that makes her a most credible witness, upon which this case should be determined.

Everything else that happened is merely a coincidence and should not be considered as anything that implicates JY.

 

[MyBelle]

Quirky coincidences that are completely unrelated to JY...from the camera (not his print) to Gracie (she couldn't even describe what he looked like)...what else?

A big coincidence that points to innocence is three separate witnesses describing an SUV at the base of their driveway between 3:30-6AM. (if we want to discuss coincidences)

Also, I don't believe he loses credibility at all for not talking to police. Was it really such a big mystery to them that his key was only swiped once? They couldn't figure this out so they desperately needed his input ASAP? They couldn't fathom that he may have left the door ajar with that metal thing that so many guests use routinely?

I'm not sure how incidents that are totally unrelated can even be considered as "quirky coincidences." Perhaps a younger juror without an education may fall for that but this entire jury must fall into that category. Makes no sense to me. If I had been on the jury, I would not have agreed to a guilty verdict in this case. There was so much submitted that I thought was an insult to the jurors' intelligence. The only coincidence that bugs me is that there are at least three cases all in the same geographic area that require new trials.

LE had a theory that Daddy did it and the theory required proof Daddy left the hotel and returned to North Carolina. If it were not for the fact that Daddy's car had proof he returned to the hotel (newspaper and hotel receipt slipped under the door) the prosecutor would not have gone to so much trouble trying to position totally unrelated things as "coincidences."

JMO