Jason Young to get new trial #2

[tarheellvr]

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.

Based on the photos of the master bedroom, it does not look like they encouraged C. to play in there. No toys are present.

I believe they had the child-proof doorknob on her door to avoid her going downstairs when she woke up - meaning she wasn't trained to stay upstairs. Why JY would leave that door wide open is a huge mystery that simply makes no sense when he could have securely contained her in her bedroom.

re: several pairs of pajamas the same --- that doesn't explain the fact that blood soaked through the pajamas as it was found on the inside and outside of the fabric. I'm going to review that testimony again. It is puzzling because no one observed blood on her pajamas.

If Mr. G was in the house, why is there no evidence to support that? Where did the dog go when MF walked out of the house? She just let him wander away without containing him in the fenced yard? None of the responders saw the dog. No bloody paw prints anywhere in the house. I think that means the odds of him being in the house are slim to none.

You continue to abuse TOS by accusing Meredith Fisher......please stop.

The bathroom was at the top of the stairs and it was a small bathroom. Yes, she would have seen bloody footprints. You, yourself, said they were dark and uniform when attempting to say someone staged them.

Meredith had Cassidy in her arms and a dead sister upstairs. Do you honestly think Mr G's whereabouts were her top priority....I don't!

And there WERE toys in the master bedroom....Cassidy put a doll by her Mommy.

 

[otto]

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

It is possible that tunnel vision is responsible for this third trial. Tunnel vision was immediately set on Jason. Actions of Michelle's sister were examined, but I don't think that she was ever considered as a suspect. Were the child's clothes washed and, if so, why? Who would be framed with the effort of washing clothing after murdering the child's mother?

Jason did not have time to wash clothes and unplug the camera at the hotel at 6:35AM, so he is not the clothes washer, and neither is his sister in law.

Blood is absorbed in carpet and the iron in blood is absorbed by dirt beside the backyard hose. Footprints become more faint as they leave a crime scene.

 

[otto]

You continue to abuse TOS by accusing Meredith Fisher......please stop.

The bathroom was at the top of the stairs and it was a small bathroom. Yes, she would have seen bloody footprints. You, yourself, said they were dark and uniform when attempting to say someone staged them.

Meredith had Cassidy in her arms and a dead sister upstairs. Do you honestly think Mr G's whereabouts were her top priority....I don't!

And there WERE toys in the master bedroom....Cassidy put a doll by her Mommy.

The question is whether the child was cleaned after she allegedly witnessed the murder. The prosecution theory seems to be that Jason had time to wash clothing, and if it wasn't Jason, who was it? What sort of random murderer stops to clean up the child of a murder/theft victim? Either the child was cleaned, or it was not. If the child was not cleaned by Jason, who cleaned the child? A random murderer? Another person that cared about the child ... and is that why the Judge ruled that the jury could reason that an unnamed random person may have been involved in the murder?

No, someone walking up the stairs next to the front entrance would not necessarily see bloody footprint in the bathroom, but it is possible. It doesn't really matter what shape the blood evidence in the bathroom was in ... it would be possible to see the bloody prints on the bathroom floor if the light was right.

Per Meredith, the dog, Mr G, was going nuts and ran out of the house.

There were no toys in the master bedroom, but there was a child's doll near the deceased. The doll that was placed near the body does not justify a claim that the master bedroom was a rumpus room full or toys. There were no toys in the master bedroom other than the child's doll ... which was placed next to the deceased.

 

[oenophile]

You continue to abuse TOS by accusing Meredith Fisher......please stop.

While I empathize with this, I wish that some people had not abused the TOS when accusing JY and Brad Cooper of murdering their wives prior to their arrests or being named as suspects. They were family of the victims and, if innocent, victims themselves. Or are husbands automatically not subject to this rule?

 

[jova33]

The question is whether the child was cleaned after she allegedly witnessed the murder. The prosecution theory seems to be that Jason had time to wash clothing, and if it wasn't Jason, who was it? What sort of random murderer stops to clean up the child of a murder/theft victim? Either the child was cleaned, or it was not. If the child was not cleaned by Jason, who cleaned the child? A random murderer? Another person that cared about the child ... and is that why the Judge ruled that the jury could reason that an unnamed random person may have been involved in the murder?

No, someone walking up the stairs next to the front entrance would not necessarily see bloody footprint in the bathroom, but it is possible. It doesn't really matter what shape the blood evidence in the bathroom was in ... it would be possible to see the bloody prints on the bathroom floor if the light was right.

Per Meredith, the dog, Mr G, was going nuts and ran out of the house.

There were no toys in the master bedroom, but there was a child's doll near the deceased. The doll that was placed near the body does not justify a claim that the master bedroom was a rumpus room full or toys. There were no toys in the master bedroom other than the child's doll ... which was placed next to the deceased.

The problem with the idea that the pajamas were washed is that the question is never asked during trial. Why? There's no visible blood on the pajamas, but they chemically tested positive in several areas for blood, why is it no one asked, "could they have been washed?"
I can draw conclusions all day long about them being washed, but it still doesn't answer the question, were they?

Is the defense not allowed to ask? Seems pretty common sense. If the pajamas were washed, there's no way on earth JY could've done it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[sunshine05]

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

She said only in the nail beds but no one corroborated that.

 

[Landonsmom02]

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.

BBM

That was a "feeling" she had, she never saw anyone. My last home has windows in front of the sink. I hated it. If my blinds were open I always felt like someone was out there. I think it had more to do with it being night and there are just 2 women alone and she had to walk to her car at night. IMO

 

[sunshine05]

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.

[modsnip]. I will provide links to support the blood evidence presented at trial.

The Defense will never be able to make the argument that the child wasn't cared for and cleaned by an adult. It will never happen. If I have time today I will find for you the evidence that CY had to be carried to the bathroom where the prints were left because there are no bloody small prints of hers in that hallway. Her prints were in the master closet and in the hall bathroom and nowhere else.

 

[MyBelle]

It is possible that tunnel vision is responsible for this third trial. Tunnel vision was immediately set on Jason. Actions of Michelle's sister were examined, but I don't think that she was ever considered as a suspect. Were the child's clothes washed and, if so, why? Who would be framed with the effort of washing clothing after murdering the child's mother?

Jason did not have time to wash clothes and unplug the camera at the hotel at 6:35AM, so he is not the clothes washer, and neither is his sister in law.

Blood is absorbed in carpet and the iron in blood is absorbed by dirt beside the backyard hose. Footprints become more faint as they leave a crime scene.

I'm sure actions of Michelle's sister were looked into because she found the body, actions of Shelly were looked into because she was the last person known to see Michelle alive, actions of Michelle M. because she was having a relationship with Jason. I doubt any were actually viewed as a suspect because the suspect was obviously Jason from the beginning. I think there is a difference between an interrogation and an interview. All three were primary witnesses for the prosecution against Jason Young.

You are correct, JY did not have time to wash clothes. Yet the focus never shifted from Jason to anyone else.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

The problem with the idea that the pajamas were washed is that the question is never asked during trial. Why? There's no visible blood on the pajamas, but they chemically tested positive in several areas for blood, why is it no one asked, "could they have been washed?"
I can draw conclusions all day long about them being washed, but it still doesn't answer the question, were they?

Is the defense not allowed to ask? Seems pretty common sense. If the pajamas were washed, there's no way on earth JY could've done it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

BBM. Exactly. The defense's questions were to emphasize that no blood was found in the Explorer or items in it. I was flabbergasted when I went back and watched it a second time but I think the appellate court pointed out the defense was less than thorough.

Next trial, Jason will have a different defense team.

JMO

 

[jova33]

BBM. Exactly. The defense's questions were to emphasize that no blood was found in the Explorer or items in it. I was flabbergasted when I went back and watched it a second time but I think the appellate court pointed out the defense was less than thorough.

Next trial, Jason will have a different defense team.

JMO

Even if the answer is, "They could have been washed but we can not say exactly," that raises reasonable doubt.

How else could they test positive for blood, but be "shockingly clean"?

Sent from your mom's smartphone

 

[MyBelle]

[modsnip] I will provide links to support the blood evidence presented at trial.

The Defense will never be able to make the argument that the child wasn't cared for and cleaned by an adult. It will never happen. If I have time today I will find for you the evidence that CY had to be carried to the bathroom where the prints were left because there are no bloody small prints of hers in that hallway. Her prints were in the master closet and in the hall bathroom and nowhere else.

I agree, CY would have left numerous prints from her bloody socks if she had walked from Michelle's bedroom to her bathroom. There is no way she wasn't carried into the bath.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Even if the answer is, "They could have been washed but we can not say exactly," that raises reasonable doubt.

How else could they test positive for blood, but be "shockingly clean"?

Sent from your mom's smartphone

It is a question that needs to be asked in opening arguments. Then, the jury will be waiting for an answer.

JMO

 

[Salem]

When will the new trial start? Has a date been set?

Thanks,

Salem

 

[JusticeFever]

When will the new trial start? Has a date been set?

Thanks,

Salem

Hi, Salem !! No, the NC Supreme Court is reviewing the state's appeal of having the conviction overturned. This could take awhile and then it will take even more time to set a Trial 3 redate. Brad Cooper was granted a new trial back in January and now it is June, and there has been no word.
Another possibility is that there may be a plea deal coming (if there already hasn't been).

 

[JusticeFever]

Plea Deal Questions: (hypothetically, of course)

1) Is the family of the victim(s) consulted and how much does that weigh in on the state's decison?
In the Arbaroa case, the family was disappointed with the plea but said they understood
2) How many years would the state offer Jason Young in a plea deal , considering time served, which is a little over 2 years
3) What are some of the other things factored in, such as cost, court scheduling, weak witness(s), and a purely circumstanial case?

 

[JusticeFever]

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.

It's the timeline and it's always been the timeline that does not work. Jason leaves the hotel around midnight, gets back to Raleigh at 2:45 am and has at the most, and even this is stretching it, 45 minutes. He has to leave Raleigh by 3:30am if the state wants him to be at 4 Bros at 5:27 am, and then another 45 minutes back to the hotel which would get him there about 6:15 am.

 

[JusticeFever]

It is a question that needs to be asked in opening arguments. Then, the jury will be waiting for an answer.

JMO

I want to know why no one has mentioned at the end of the 911 call, CY is telling MF that someone was there. I never heard the entire 9 minute phone call before, just the short version, but in the longer one CY is telling MF that someone was there, not Jason, not Daddy, but someone. MF repeats those words to the 911 operator.

 

[JusticeFever]

BBM

That was a "feeling" she had, she never saw anyone. My last home has windows in front of the sink. I hated it. If my blinds were open I always felt like someone was out there. I think it had more to do with it being night and there are just 2 women alone and she had to walk to her car at night. IMO

Shelly was so scared she had to ask Michelle to walk her out to her car, and her car was parked right in the driveway right next to the house, not on the street.
That is scared.

 

[JusticeFever]

There were no toys found in M&J's bedroom, no signs that CY played in there at all, even before this happened. There is nothing in that room or the bed that shows how CY would have kept herself entertained or busy, other than a pair of mismatched shoes which are entirely out of place. At one point, she had her doll, but we don't know when she placed it by Michelle. There is no way of knowing what that little girl did for 10+hours.....slept, drugged, taken away, saw something, didn't see something, We will never know.
If the state wants you to believe she witnessed the crime, there has to be something more definite than just the above theories.