Jason Young to get new trial #2

[JusticeFever]

Ahhh come on now....the truth here is the admittance of information regarding the Civil Suit. The judge in the Civil Suit named JY the SLAYER of Michelle Young, not the prosecution.

While on this subject, MANY of us will NEVER forget the fact JY gave up custody of the child he had kept from the Fishers for YEARS....why???? his guilty arse didn't want to be subjected to questions and psyche exam.

Now, see this is not true. Jason never gave up custody of CY, he and MF worked out a shared custody agreement, and I think its been explained a million times over that JY did it with the expertise of a attorney, Alice Stubbs and the reasons why.

 

[JusticeFever]

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.....

Then you also have to say, "Just how lucky can one guy be?" because he wasn't arrested for 3 years, 8 of the Jurors found him NG in Trial 1, and because of an error made by the Judge, he gets another chance.

 

[Salem]

There is a lot of back and forth about what is fact and what is fiction.

I can start a thread in the media area for fact v. fiction. We have done this in a few other cases. Let me get a link so everyone can see what I mean.

Salem

ETA: Here is one such thread. Myth Busters & Facts **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Let me know if members would like to see a thread like this for this case.

 

[minor4th]

IIRC, and please correct me if I'm wrong, they did hook up once after MY died.

Twice

 

[oenophile]

There is a lot of back and forth about what is fact and what is fiction.

I can start a thread in the media area for fact v. fiction. We have done this in a few other cases. Let me get a link so everyone can see what I mean.

Salem

ETA: Here is one such thread. Myth Busters & Facts **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Let me know if members would like to see a thread like this for this case.

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.

 

[oenophile]

Twice

I listened to the first trial testimony, and I believe she said they met after the murder but didn't mention a sexual encounter at that point. Please correct me if I'm wrong by pointing to the testimony.

 

[Cherry]

Can you please point me to the testimony that stated the Young's knew she was dead but did not know she was murdered? And when they found out that she was murdered and not simply dead? Considering several people called him between the time he was first informed and the time that he got to the house, it is reasonable to conclude that someone told him she was murdered and not simply dead.



Thank you for admitting that and putting it on the record. Not much point in a justice system then, is there?

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..

 

[Cherry]

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.

I do believe that during his last trial le.officer on the stand testified to exactly this.

 

[MyBelle]

Twice

I don't believe they ever had a sexual relationship after the murder. Michelle Money testified she and Jason maintained a friendship after Michelle's murder.

Money said she and young quit communicating after the funeral for a while and a few weeks later, investigators questioned her about the 400 phone calls, text messages and emails the two shared in the month leading up to Michelle Young's death.

Later, Money said the two resumed communication on a friend basis in the summer of 2007 and that stopped in January 2008 after a visit from SBI agents.

“He was very firm with me told me that I was an idiot and I needed to never speak to him again and that I was going to get myself in trouble if I did,” Money testified.

Money testified that at one point she was even accused of having some involvement. She denied being involved in Michelle Young's murder and said she never asked Jason Young if he murdered his wife.
- See more at: http://centralnc.twcnews.com/conten...in-murder-trial?ap=1&MP4#sthash.Wvz2M5xu.dpuf

JMO

 

[JusticeFever]

Twice

No, they didn't. They never hooked up after Michelle's death. I know they met one time at Mrytle Beach and sat on the beach and talked and MM said there were about 400 other people around.

 

[JusticeFever]

There is a lot of back and forth about what is fact and what is fiction.

I can start a thread in the media area for fact v. fiction. We have done this in a few other cases. Let me get a link so everyone can see what I mean.

Salem

ETA: Here is one such thread. Myth Busters & Facts **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Let me know if members would like to see a thread like this for this case.

I am happy with this thread, maybe if people would just share a link when there is a doubt as to what happened. And, I am happy you are looking out for us, for both sides!

 

[Cherry]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=--Olb3pkoLw
the blood on cassadys clothing

 

[JusticeFever]

Here is the link to the testimony about the meeting in Mrytle Beach (JY and MM) they had in June 2007.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9728085/


4 minutes into the testimony

 

[Cherry]

I would ignore the very bias comments but here is the 911 call w footage of the scene
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=as3Q6TQTRiE

 

[minor4th]

I listened to the first trial testimony, and I believe she said they met after the murder but didn't mention a sexual encounter at that point. Please correct me if I'm wrong by pointing to the testimony.

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

 

[oenophile]

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..

Although only jurors are bound by it, wouldn't you agree that it is a pretty good philosophy in general?

 

[Cherry]

not even a third trial will.erase any of the facts judge says here after verdict.
1 jason youngs mo is always the same
jason young is the only person who hated michelle to this extent ergo beating her mercilessly to death...he couldnt stop until exhausted.
this case was is domestic violence per all the facts in this case
jduge stephens understands the facts in this case better than anyone,
and no one else had the motive means or opportunity to premeditate this crime other tban jason young.
anyone who feels different is practicly condoning domestic violence or most certainly doesnt know the facts in this case or the evidence. jason young premeditated tbis crime and is the ONLY person who hated michelle and wanted her gone. 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. the judge explains ALL of these facts here
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-B1ElVAh3Uo

 

[Cherry]

Although only jurors are bound by it, wouldn't you agree that it is a pretty good philosophy in general?

for jurors sworn under oath only.

 

[oenophile]

I do believe that during his last trial le.officer on the stand testified to exactly this.

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.

 

[oenophile]

for jurors sworn under oath only.

So you think that in everyday life, we should not presume people to be innocent?

Frankly, I think presuming people guilty is not healthy in a society.