Jason Young to get new trial #2

[minor4th]

You do know that LE issued a search warrant also thinking Cassidy had been removed from the home too?
Whoever said Jason gave Cassidy fruit snacks?
And I think I will believe Mrs. Beaver every day of the week, who lived on that street for 21 years and saw activity again at the Young driveway when she came home that afternoon.
How Gracie was ever able to testify I will never know...maybe this time the next Judge will not permit it.

Why would she not be allowed to testify?? She's just a fact witness, and not an expert. The judge can't just ban witnesses from testifying.

 

[JusticeFever]

My list is longer than your list

But seriously, none of those things even come close to raising reasonable doubt IMO, especially when you compare it to the list of so-called coincidences.

Yes it is, but that doesn't make it any more accurate.

 

[JusticeFever]

To me, lack of his fingerprints means the camera is not evidence that is connected with the crime. This prosecutor relied on a lot of nonexistent evidence. Kinda like telling a jury there is a smoking gun, we can't find it but please take our word for it. I'm not easily persuaded.

JMO

The state had a difficult time with this case and waited 3 long years before making an arrest. I don't know what else they were waiting for, they had Gracie, the state's star witness, her identification of Jason should have been enough, and the state went to visit her 6 times, even though she lived far away. It was only after the civil ruling and Jason's refusal to speak, the state finally made their move.
And, now because of that move and the Judge allowing it in to the criminal trial, we get to do it all again.

 

[JusticeFever]

Why would she not be allowed to testify?? She's just a fact witness, and not an expert. The judge can't just ban witnesses from testifying.

Gracie faltered through her description and testimony of Jason being there at every turn.
She names a witness who was never found. I am not sure if you are new to the case, but the state tried very hard to find that witness. They put in surveillance cameras at the store, they issued flyers. They basically staked out the place and this witness, who she described as coming in every morning, at the same time, never showed up again. Even though he was a regular customer, he just vanished.
The only proof is a cash transaction, and there were other transactions within seconds of each other. In fact, the transactions were happening so quickly, I am almost sure now that the pumps were running, and not turned off. Otherwise people would have been running into each other, and at the very least, someone else would have seen Jason. But, nope, no one..
Did Gracie share this story with anyone else, before LE approached her? Did she tell her boss or co-worker, that some guy cursed her out and scared her? Nope.
Did Gracie's balance sheet for her shift prove this $5.00 overage? Highly unlikely.

 

[minor4th]

Gracie faltered through her description and testimony of Jason being there at every turn.

She names a witness who was never found. I am not sure if you are new to the case, but the state tried very hard to find that witness. They put in surveillance cameras at the store, they issued flyers. They basically staked out the place and this witness, who she described as coming in every morning, at the same time, never showed up again. Even though he was a regular customer, he just vanished.

The only proof is that a cash transaction, and there were other transactions within seconds of each other. In fact, the transactions were happening so quickly, I am almost sure now that the pumps were running, and not turned off. Otherwise people would have been running into each other, and at the very least, someone else would have seen Jason. But, nope, no one..

But even if a witness is a total flake and completely unreliable, the judge can't ban them from testifying. It's up to the jury to decide what weight to give the testimony and to determine the witness' credibility.

If there are a lot of real problems with her credibility or reliability, then the jury won't believe her and won't accept her testimony - but the judge can't make that determination in advance and not allow her to testify.

 

[Grammy Jean]

I can't think of two more dissimilar cases. Laci was a missing person and no crime scene. Difficult to compare the two, imo.

So does that mean you believe that in the Scott Peterson case there was no reasonable doubt and the jury got it right???????

 

[Madeleine74]

Gracie as a witness is credible in the fact that she had an encounter with a man and she was able to describe that very encounter in detail. What the guy said, how he acted, what he wore, what kind of vehicle he drove, where he parked to get gas, how many times he buzzed to get her attention, the amount of the transaction, the amount of change left over, what he said to her. She'll be a witness in the next trial as well because the judge ruled in a separate hearing (2011) that her testimony was relevant to the case.

Ultimately it's up to a jury to decide how much weight to give her testimony, if any at all. If the jury believes it was JY who cussed her out that very morning around 5:30am, he's toast. There is no innocent reason for him being in King, NC at that time except for the obvious.

ETA: I was writing my post and didn't see Minor's above.

 

[JusticeFever]

But even if a witness is a total flake and completely unreliable, the judge can't ban them from testifying. It's up to the jury to decide what weight to give the testimony and to determine the witness' credibility.

If there are a lot of real problems with her credibility or reliability, then the jury won't believe her and won't accept her testimony - but the judge can't make that determination in advance and not allow her to testify.

Even as far back as the pre-trial hearing, we know Gracie's description of Jason changed all the time. And, if anyone had that much confidence in what she said, he would have been immediately arrested that weekend.
The fact that he wasn't says it all.

 

[MyBelle]

So does that mean you believe that in the Scott Peterson case there was no reasonable doubt and the jury got it right???????

I didn't watch the trial. Sorry.

 

[Madeleine74]

JY's defense better figure out the story on his Hush Puppy Orbital shoes.

JY claims those shoes were given away to Goodwill by Michelle.

One of JY's attorneys claimed the shoes were in his closet and were worn by "the killer" to try and make it look like JY.

Which is it? Shoes there? Shoes not there? His own attorneys couldn't agree on this. One claimed one thing during closing and the other claimed the opposite.

To me it's obvious. He was seen in the video at Cracker Barrel wearing those shoes. The SBI shoe expert testified the shoes in that video had the same characteristics in terms of shape and stitching detail. Size 12 Orbital sole shoes made prints in MY's blood in the MBR where she was murdered. Therefore those Orbital sole shoes were on the killer's feet at the time MY was killed. Upon arriving back in Raleigh, where Momma Young testified nothing was taken out of JY's SUV, those shoes were not anywhere in his luggage nor in his vehicle. Nor were the clothes he was seen wearing on the Hampton Inn video as he left to "go smoke a cigar in 34 degree weather with wind gusts." Another irony I suppose.

 

[JusticeFever]

Gracie as a witness is credible in the fact that she had an encounter with a man and she was able to describe that very encounter in detail. What the guy said, how he acted, what he wore, what kind of vehicle he drove, where he parked to get gas, how many times he buzzed to get her attention, the amount of the transaction, the amount of change left over, what he said to her. She'll be a witness in the next trial as well because the judge ruled in a separate hearing (2011) that her testimony was relevant to the case.

Ultimately it's up to a jury to decide how much weight to give her testimony, if any at all. If the jury believes it was JY who cussed her out that very morning around 5:30am, he's toast. There is no innocent reason for him being in King, NC at that time except for the obvious.

ETA: I was writing my post and didn't see Minor's above.

Where is the person Gracie described as being in the store, and why did the state try so hard to find him? To this day, almost 8 years later, he can't be found. Maybe they should open a missing person's case.

 

[Madeleine74]

Not sure who that is, but one of the people that was in the store and could have been a witness is deceased, IIRC.

 

[JusticeFever]

Not sure who that is, but one of the people that was in the store and could have been a witness is deceased, IIRC.

That is not true. At all.

 

[MyBelle]

Even as far back as the pre-trial hearing, we know Gracie's description of Jason changed all the time. And, if anyone had that much confidence in what she said, he would have been immediately arrested that weekend.
The fact that he wasn't says it all.

Yes it does. And probably next trial the defense will again object to her testimony before trial ever begins.

Defense attorneys argued that detectives did not follow identification procedures and might have created "an impermissible taint" on Dahms' memory by not showing her a photo lineup.

Read more at http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9624237/#TPQbMvTCFk5PbEE1.99

 

[JusticeFever]

Yes it does. And probably next trial the defense will again object to her testimony before trial ever begins.

Defense attorneys argued that detectives did not follow identification procedures and might have created "an impermissible taint" on Dahms' memory by not showing her a photo lineup.

Read more at http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9624237/#TPQbMvTCFk5PbEE1.99

Thank you for the link, MyBelle.
Hope we hear something soon!

 

[Madeleine74]

That is not true. At all.

That is true. Might have been the guy who supplied the newspapers and filled up the stand each morning at the gas station inside. I remember hearing about someone who was there every morning, early, and I remember hearing whoever that is had passed away, which is why he couldn't testify. Might not be the same person as the guy who said something to JY about needing to go inside.

 

[sunshine05]

No we shouldn't convict him just because the camera was tampered with. And I'm all for having a fair trial, so when all is said and done, it's possible I'll change my mind.

Believe me, I hold the State to their burden of proof and no one should be convicted based on a hunch or an emotional response. But the circumstantial evidence in this case is very strong IMO. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any doubt or beyond all possibilities. And my point all along is that there are so many "coincidences" related to Jason Young that night and the next morning that in my mind it becomes so improbable that they are all just coincidences, and it establishes proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Every life event can be presented as a string of coincidences when one highlights things to make it seem like there's so much that's wrong. I fail to see the coincidences that implicate him in this crime, minus the cameras and even then I want to see him tied to it somehow - fingerprint, his image approaching it, etc.

 

[JusticeFever]

That is true. Might have been the guy who supplied the newspapers and filled up the stand each morning. I remember someone was there every morning, early, and I remember hearing whoever that is had passed away, which is why he couldn't testify.

Ummmm, the guy who delivered the papers actually called LE and told them it was not him!
We are talkiing about Gracie's customer, who came in for coffee, the guy who said to Gracie after Jason left "Hey, that was rude"
Then Gracie switched her story from a regular customer to a news delivery person.
And, whoever it was, was very much ALIVE when they set up tapes and passed out flyers just a short time later!!!!!!!!

 

[Madeleine74]

Ummmm, the guy who delivered the papers actually called LE and told them it was not him!
And, whoever it was, was still ALIVE when they set up tapes and passed out flyers!!!!!!!!

Ummmm you're confusing the newspaper delivery people (there were 2 of them, from 2 different publications) on Birchleaf Drive in Raleigh with the newspaper delivery guy who serviced the King, NC gas station and showed up every morning to load up the newspapers there. The King, NC newspaper guy was referred to in GC's testimony. It is the King, NC guy I am referring to. And the King, NC guy did not testify. It might be because he was deceased.

 

[JusticeFever]

Ummmm you're confusing the newspaper delivery people (there were 2 of them, from 2 different publications) on Birchleaf Drive in Raleigh with the newspaper delivery guy who serviced the King, NC gas station and showed up every morning to load up the newspapers there. The King, NC newspaper guy was referred to in GC's testimony. It is the King, NC guy I am referring to. And the King, NC guy did not testify. It might be because he was deceased.

Lol, I am not confusing Travis Branch or anyone else who delivered papers in Raleigh, including Terry Tiller.
I am talking about Gracie and 4 Bros but you must know that! The guy in King, NC, wouldn't need to testify back then, all
he needed to do was make a statement to LE that he was there, that he saw Jason, he never did.
No one ever did. No one ever came forward, Ever.